No explanation for the evolution of religion can be regarded as relevant that is not embedded in a concordant explanation of cultural evolution (Bulbulia and colleagues 2013; Richerson and Christiansen 2013). Haidle and colleagues (2015) distinguish between culturalistic and naturalistic views on culture, which should be synthesized. The literature trying to integrate the evolution of culture and the evolution of organisms might be sorted into three categories of study, each of which will be discussed in more detail:
Evolutionary biology applied to culture
A Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) colloquium, introduced by Whiten and colleagues (2017), advocated “the extension of biology through culture.” Feldman (2017) reaffirmed the project, as well as a sweeping manifesto signed by founding members of the Cultural Evolution Society, formed in 2014 (Brewer and colleagues 2017). They regard it as a reenactment of the Modern Synthesis in biology, which synthesized evolution and genetics between about 1918 and 1970. Laland and colleagues (2014) accordingly call for an extended evolutionary framework, including developmental bias, environment-driven plasticity, niche construction and cultural coevolution. The respective model of Brewer and colleagues (2017) has been characterized as the kinetic theory of culture, analogous to the kinetic theory of gases (Lewens 2015). Many similar attempts preceded them (Buskes 2015; Kundt 2015). Laland and Brown’s Sense and Nonsense (2011, 2nd ed.) distinguishes different starting points for evolutionary explanations of human nature: sociobiology, behavioral ecology, evolutionary psychology, cultural evolution and gene-culture coevolution. Mesoudi and colleagues (2006) argue that a “unified science of cultural evolution” has to be homologous (common evolutionary origin) with evolutionary biology, from subdiscipline to subdiscipline, from method to method (2006, fig.1). The concept presupposes that the transmission of cultural information across generations has some similarities to genetic transmission and operates through units, similar to units of genetic transmission. Among the many names given to such units, the most popular have been – following Richard Dawkins’ suggestion – memes (Aoki 2001).
However, it is widely accepted now that the notion of cultural memes, which are closely analogous (i.e., same function but different evolutionary origin) with genes, is unsatisfactory. Nonetheless, Richerson and Boyd (2005, 14) claim that “natural selection acting on culture is an ultimate cause of human behavior, just as natural selection acting on genes.” Runciman (2005, 1) states that the “fundamental process of heritable variation and competitive selection of information affecting phenotypes (interaction of genes with environments) underlies both biological and cultural evolution despite their obvious differences.” Yet the terms “heritable” and “selection” pose problems. Acerbi and Mesoudi (2015) and Whiten and colleagues (2017) acknowledge that cultural contents are often not copied or randomly changed like genes. They are reconstructed by processes they call guided variation and biased transmission. The authors note that the latter is a Lamarckian (inheritance of acquired characteristics) rather than a Darwinian (evolution by natural selection) process. Nonetheless, they confirm that cultural evolution follows “broadly Darwinian principles.”
On the other hand, there is a good deal of skepticism (Fracchia and Lewontin 1999, 2005; Ingold 2007; Read and Lane 2008). Gray and colleagues (2007) point to the need to leave aside memetics (information and culture based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution) and to focus more on phylogenetic (evolutionary history) studies, including new approaches like network construction, reconciliation analysis and Bayesian mixture models. Phylogenesis is the Darwinian biological process by which new life-forms appear. Abrutyn (2016, 325) finds fault with “the construction of general theories of macro-level evolution” because they lead to models that
either ignore or unsatisfactorily handle two facts: Some aspects of sociocultural evolution, arguably, are driven by purposeful, active collective efforts and the processes of selection, at some levels of social reality such as the group or the institutional sphere are driven by non-Darwinian selection forces.
Gabora suggests models based on an autopoietic process (i.e., a system capable of reproducing and maintaining itself), a form of emergent self-production or on communal exchange (2008, 2013). See also Sperber (1998), Claidière and André (2012), Claidière et al. (2014). Turner and colleagues (2017) propose that four types of non-Darwinian selection processes were at work in the evolution of religions. Somewhat surprisingly, the authors still speak of “natural selection,” even though one type of selection pressure stems from consciously perceived “need states and behavioral propensities,” and the actors are, for example, “goal-seeking corporate units” or “social movement organizations.” Indeed, the authors pursue a nonscientific interest by their choice of terminology, “to expand inquiry and yet maintain some continuity with biology” (46). To the contrary, the literature discussed in the next section emphasizes the distinct dynamics of cultural evolution.
The influence of culture in human evolution
Many studies have stressed the specificity of human evolution, compared with that of our close biological relatives, by highlighting the crucial role that culture played in that process (Janson and Smith 2003; Heyes 2012; Barrett et al. 2012). Not all other species lack elementary forms of culture. A recent issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (2017) offers an introductory overview and a collection of 19 articles concerned with cultural phenomena in apes, monkeys and cetaceans (marine mammals), as well as human culture. Oviedo and Feierman (2017) argue that there is little evidence of religion in behavioral performances outside the genus Homo. (For a different perspective, see Broom 2008 and this volume.) The evolution of religion has to be embedded in human, or perhaps hominin, cultural evolution. Its sophistication, the enormous capacity to transmit and replicate cultural information that humans exhibit, renders our culture a uniquely human trait. Some theoretical concepts integrate culture into a broad pattern of multilevel factors or dimensions that influence human evolution. An almost classic example is a book by Jablonka and Lamb, Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life (2005). The title indicates that human evolution has been shaped both by biological factors and cultural ones, the latter depending on a world of symbols. The approach was further developed by Fuentes (2008), who proposed the use of the ecological concept of “niche construction” to account for the inevitable effect of culture on evolutionary processes. Haidle and colleagues (2015) propose a comprehensive three-dimensional model of cultural capacities and performances, which includes an evolutionary-biological dimension, a historic-social dimension and an ontogenetic-individual dimension. Brown and Strawn (2014) offer another holistic and complex model.
Interaction between behavior, mind and culture
The third approach to the topic of culture and its integration in a biological account of the human mind and human behavior concerns the interaction of cultural phenomena with the human mind. It is supported by a cultural scaffolding providing symbols and many auxiliary tools. Another notion is that of the extended mind, pointing to its unavoidable link with external means to fully develop its role. In the past 20 years, a copious body of specialized literature has dealt with these issues. Among the most quoted names are Merlin Donald, Edwin Hutchins, Terrence Deacon, Michael Tomasello, Andy Clark, George Lakoff, Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner. The culturally available symbols obviously evolve with a cognitive architecture adapted to their use and management. In other words, culture progresses as an evolving, abundant and dynamic system of symbols that helps to provide knowledge, meaning and specific skills to individuals. That complex interaction of mind and culture is vital for the explanation of many features of human behavior and its highly contingent character. If one regards the biologically evolved human mind in this manner as the basis of the evolution of culture, it is debatable whether their interaction can still be described as “Darwinian” and what such an analogy could still mean.
