Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Creating ConsilienceIntegrating the Sciences and the Humanities$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Edward Slingerland and Mark Collard

Print publication date: 2011

Print ISBN-13: 9780199794393

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2012

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199794393.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 20 October 2018

When Does Psychology Drive Culture?

When Does Psychology Drive Culture?

Chapter:
(p.179) 9 When Does Psychology Drive Culture?
Source:
Creating Consilience
Author(s):

Olivier Morin

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199794393.003.0010

Naturalistic approaches to culture face an adjustment problem: many entities commonly found in the social sciences (traditions, institutions, social norms, etc.) do not seem to have any plausible counterpart in the natural sciences that are closest to humans (biology and psychology). The natural world seems too tiny to accommodate the furniture of the social world. There are two ways around this problem. The first consists in trying to add new elements to our biological and psychological toolkit that may explain cultures, institutions, and norms. For example, one might hypothesize that special faculties of imitation and processes of group-selection allowed cultural norms to emerge and constrain individuals, or that humans have a special capacity to create institutions by means of collective intentionality. Cultural epidemiologists, in contrast, try to give descriptions of cultural phenomena that do not include such unwieldy objects as cultural forces, collective intentions, mind-coercive norms, and such. A culture, in the epidemiological view, is a distribution of representations within a population. Being a statistical abstraction, this distribution lacks an essence and causal powers. Cultural representations are transmitted in the same way as representations that never become cultural; they just spread further and survive longer. They do so, not because they travel the superhighway of imitation—there need not be such a highway—but because their content makes them more attractive to individual human minds. People from different cultures may view the world differently in many cases, but that is not because their culture puts some sort of constraint on their ideas; in these cases, their ideas and their culture are the very same thing. The epidemiological approach is a way to deflate our common views about culture, so that it no longer seems to outstretch the natural world. The two strategies are not incompatible. When trying to fit two pieces together, it makes sense to shrink one of the pieces while enlarging the other.

Keywords:   cultural transmission, traditions, evolutionary psychology, cultural epidemiology

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .