[Marxism-Thaxis] The Evolution of Culture
CeJ jannuzi Why did we need dogs to develop gesturing. We could gesture to people. But drove forward that development? There is a really cute program on TV here in Japan that shows the adventures of a chimpanzee (who is very socialized to humans) who is paired up with a bull dog. The two animals do communicate, but they have to learn to read each other's body language and gestures. The question here being, does their communication constitute something outside of what chimps usually use, what dogs usually use, to communicate? One particular theory about the possible gestural origins of human language says that humans developed gestural routines and phonetic skills, and the gestural routines basically migrated over to the phonetic realm (we use our faces, vocal tracts and upper body to SPEAK a language). If two species like hominids and wolves interact, it might overall mean that their paths of evolutions only partly converge. A recent development in human-dog development, or at least one that is obvious, is the fairly recent creation of cute, child-like breeds (while the archetypal dog is still wolf-like in appearance--the Alsatian, the Husky, the Japanese Akita, etc.). Has the co-evolutionary story of humans-dogs more or less hit a deadend for both species (with wolves themselves threatened by extinction and the future of dogs totally dependent on humans' abilities to feed and house them). ^ CB: You're the linguist. But to me, the essence of language is symbolling. Using something to represent something that it is not. The co-operation of dogs and humans was most likely very adaptive for dogs. I bet their population is a lot bigger than that of wolves , now. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Evolution of Culture
Carrol Cox wrote: This was a fascinating post, I learned a lot from it. But it seems to me the understandings of language and change it describes could be expressed in other terms than the metaphor of evolution. Natural selection, applied to human history, including the history of language, seems to caught up in false notions of Progress as a comprehensive theory of histoy. Carrol ^^ CB: I agree that natural selection shouldn't be brought over from biology to the historical developments of language. Of course , there isn't progress in biological evolution either. However, I'd say there is a progressive _way_ in the development of human society _today_. But such progress is _not_ inevitable. We have to struggle for it consciously. Anyway, the progressive way today is to socialism, including social reforms of capitalism short of full socialism. I suppose the dying out of such terms as free enterprise, nigger and bitch would be progress in language. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] The Evolution of Culture
CB: You're the linguist. But to me, the essence of language is symbolling. Using something to represent something that it is not. The co-operation of dogs and humans was most likely very adaptive for dogs. I bet their population is a lot bigger than that of wolves , now. But the theory about co-evolution is about how adaptive it was for both, including a certain type of homonids who then differentiated from others and became us. Could this--just speculating--have been one reason why our direct ancestors were able to displace Neanderthal? I'm just using that as a very speculative example. I think the article I cited goes back further than this in homonid evolution. If we take a selection of domesticated dogs and let them go feral they form a pack that then propagates. I have even seen a Golden Retriever and a Chihuahua go feral and form a bond together (saw this on Miyako Island, Okinawa, where the weather is very mild). One doubts dogs that deviate too far from the wolf-coyote type contribute much to future generations (but also remember that most exotic breeds are fairly recent in the human-dog relationship). In several generations you have something that looks like what? Well, like the coy-dogs of the east coast of the US. Now about language. If a group of homonids able to signal using vocalizations and hand-and-arm gestures go out as a group with dogs in order to hunt prey or herd animals (actually the two activities over-lap), are they symbolling among themselves (homonids, canines) in order to pass down a previous generation's knowledge of hunting? They may do that in the activities of preparation and hunting/herding, but their 'here and now' is about communicating individual and collective intent in order to achieve a common goal--manipulation of the herd of animals for future use, food supply for immediate use. We could take the discussion back to that issue of what is arbitrary and what is motivated in human communication. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Evolution of Culture
This was a fascinating post, I learned a lot from it. But it seems to me the understandings of language and change it describes could be expressed in other terms than the metaphor of evolution. Natural selection, applied to human history, including the history of language, seems to caught up in false notions of Progress as a comprehensive theory of histoy. Carrol ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Evolution of Culture
Languages (that is, communities of speakers who use a language or a form of it in communication) in their current state of play (parole, collective performance) have to balance competing but not negating, for want of a better word, 'principles' of 'redundancy' and 'efficiency'. Without redundancy, too much is lost in transmission (since the listener or reader must 'perceive' a message by sampling it sufficiently and then re-encoding it). Without 'efficiency' the message's producer (speaker, writer) can be cognitively over-strained and/or the message's perceiver can be overwhelmed. The term 'evolution' is popularly associated with an idea of driven development towards some higher level or even end goal. That idea is not supported in even the most reactionary branches of academic linguistics since the influence of the structuralists from a 50-100 years ago. Linguistic nationalists still drag it out--with notions that this or that language is superior to another--we even see a disguised form of it in arguments for 'global English' (which, as I am well aware, always runs smack hard into issues of 'learnability'). I think the one post about evolutionary linguistics fits with the material CB earlier posted about cultural evolution. But you are right, CC, that such terms do not easily cross disciplines, and more importantly, into the vernacular without much potential for misleading or misunderstanding. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] The Evolution of Culture
One interesting theory is about what separates our line of development from other homonids--co-evolution with another highly intelligent, highly social animal--dogs. This might lead us down other areas of inquiry, such as , if human language first devloped as gesture, did it develop with canines , with our interaction with canines? Did domestication of dogs help make us more communicatively capable? CJ http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/s/275/Science/Coevolution03.pdf Co-evolution of Humans and Canids http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1405262/Co-Evolution-New-evidence-suggests.html If the DNA evidence is correct, it is creatures such as these that domesticated the wolf and turned it into a dog. People may have stolen wolf pups from their dens to play with or just to keep for the enjoyment of watching them. Like the young animals that are brought home as toys by tribal hunting peoples today, most of these pups probably had short lives. As Susan Crockford argues, some may have possessed the hormonal characteristics that produced dog-like behaviour and would have adapted to life in a human camp. (5) Those that survived to adulthood and produced pups of their own may have been the first ancestors of the dogs, which have lived with humans ever since. This was a new development in biology and history. For the first time, hunting parties and camp groups composed of two distinct species began to spread across the landscapes of the world. It makes little sense to think of this process as one in which early humans domesticated the wolf. Aside from the human use of simple tools, there was probably little difference in the complexity of hunting patterns or social organization between early human bands and wolf packs. If humans domesticated the wolf, is it not equally probable that wolves domesticated humans? Were the changes that developed between wolf and dog any more significant than those that occurred to early humans through their constant association with canids? In a recent article in the magazine Discovering Archaeology, biologist Wolfgang Schleidt notes the apparent temporal coincidence between the emergence of humankind and of dogkind, and suggests that, This intertwining process of hominization and caninisation suggests co-evolution. (6) Schleidt proposes a specific scenario, involving humans emulating wolves and eventually co-opting wolves in hunting the migratory reindeer of Ice Age Eurasia. Yet a much broader view of the interactions between humans and wolves, and the results of these interactions, might be envisaged. In comparing ourselves with other animals, we think of intelligence, self-awareness, the ability to conceive new ideas and foresee long-term consequences as traits that are uniquely human. In the animal world these traits are most clearly mirrored by the great apes, and in a lesser way by our other primate relatives. But are all the characteristics that we think of as making us human inherited only from our primate ancestry? What about qualities such as patience, endurance, unthinking loyalty, co-operation, devotion to family and social group? What of our abilities to organize co-operative activities based on a finely tuned sense of social hierarchy and mutual responsibilities? Wolves seem to do these things significantly better than humans, and at least as well as most non-human primates. The biologists who have made their life-work the study of wolves describe an animal that lives in a world of complex social hierarchies, with well-organized co-operative work patterns, finely tuned communication skills, and outbreaks of spontaneous joy. Together with their superior ability to scent prey, to run more swiftly and endure longer than humans, these social qualities are the basis of their successful adaptation as hunters. And these are also qualities that would have been useful in the environment that saw our early ancestors turn into true humans. Given the situation of hunting bands composed of early humans and their wolf-dog companions, animals with complementary character and abilities, can we be sure that the process of domestication acted in only one direction? The DNA evidence suggests that these animals lived and worked together for some 5000 human generations before the emergence of societies and cultures that we can describe as fully human. In the course of these generations wolves were transformed into dogs, but did their dogs also transform ancient people into humans? Would archaic humans have developed into such a successful and dominant species if we had not had the opportunity to learn from, imitate and absorb into our cultures the traits and abilities of the wolves with whom we lived? Hints of our unacknowledged debt to wolves may perhaps be found in the cultural memories of human societies. Wolves play contradictory roles in human folklore and in human emotions. On one side stands the wolf as arch-villain of the forest, the creature who tries to devour Peter, Red
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Evolution of Culture
Why did we need dogs to develop gesturing. We could gesture to people. On 3/31/10, CeJ jann...@gmail.com wrote: One interesting theory is about what separates our line of development from other homonids--co-evolution with another highly intelligent, highly social animal--dogs. This might lead us down other areas of inquiry, such as , if human language first devloped as gesture, did it develop with canines , with our interaction with canines? Did domestication of dogs help make us more communicatively capable? CJ http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/s/275/Science/Coevolution03.pdf Co-evolution of Humans and Canids http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1405262/Co-Evolution-New-evidence-suggests.html If the DNA evidence is correct, it is creatures such as these that domesticated the wolf and turned it into a dog. People may have stolen wolf pups from their dens to play with or just to keep for the enjoyment of watching them. Like the young animals that are brought home as toys by tribal hunting peoples today, most of these pups probably had short lives. As Susan Crockford argues, some may have possessed the hormonal characteristics that produced dog-like behaviour and would have adapted to life in a human camp. (5) Those that survived to adulthood and produced pups of their own may have been the first ancestors of the dogs, which have lived with humans ever since. This was a new development in biology and history. For the first time, hunting parties and camp groups composed of two distinct species began to spread across the landscapes of the world. It makes little sense to think of this process as one in which early humans domesticated the wolf. Aside from the human use of simple tools, there was probably little difference in the complexity of hunting patterns or social organization between early human bands and wolf packs. If humans domesticated the wolf, is it not equally probable that wolves domesticated humans? Were the changes that developed between wolf and dog any more significant than those that occurred to early humans through their constant association with canids? In a recent article in the magazine Discovering Archaeology, biologist Wolfgang Schleidt notes the apparent temporal coincidence between the emergence of humankind and of dogkind, and suggests that, This intertwining process of hominization and caninisation suggests co-evolution. (6) Schleidt proposes a specific scenario, involving humans emulating wolves and eventually co-opting wolves in hunting the migratory reindeer of Ice Age Eurasia. Yet a much broader view of the interactions between humans and wolves, and the results of these interactions, might be envisaged. In comparing ourselves with other animals, we think of intelligence, self-awareness, the ability to conceive new ideas and foresee long-term consequences as traits that are uniquely human. In the animal world these traits are most clearly mirrored by the great apes, and in a lesser way by our other primate relatives. But are all the characteristics that we think of as making us human inherited only from our primate ancestry? What about qualities such as patience, endurance, unthinking loyalty, co-operation, devotion to family and social group? What of our abilities to organize co-operative activities based on a finely tuned sense of social hierarchy and mutual responsibilities? Wolves seem to do these things significantly better than humans, and at least as well as most non-human primates. The biologists who have made their life-work the study of wolves describe an animal that lives in a world of complex social hierarchies, with well-organized co-operative work patterns, finely tuned communication skills, and outbreaks of spontaneous joy. Together with their superior ability to scent prey, to run more swiftly and endure longer than humans, these social qualities are the basis of their successful adaptation as hunters. And these are also qualities that would have been useful in the environment that saw our early ancestors turn into true humans. Given the situation of hunting bands composed of early humans and their wolf-dog companions, animals with complementary character and abilities, can we be sure that the process of domestication acted in only one direction? The DNA evidence suggests that these animals lived and worked together for some 5000 human generations before the emergence of societies and cultures that we can describe as fully human. In the course of these generations wolves were transformed into dogs, but did their dogs also transform ancient people into humans? Would archaic humans have developed into such a successful and dominant species if we had not had the opportunity to learn from, imitate and absorb into our cultures the traits and abilities of the wolves with whom we lived? Hints of our unacknowledged debt to wolves may perhaps be found in the cultural memories of human
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Evolution of Culture
Why did we need dogs to develop gesturing. We could gesture to people. But drove forward that development? There is a really cute program on TV here in Japan that shows the adventures of a chimpanzee (who is very socialized to humans) who is paired up with a bull dog. The two animals do communicate, but they have to learn to read each other's body language and gestures. The question here being, does their communication constitute something outside of what chimps usually use, what dogs usually use, to communicate? One particular theory about the possible gestural origins of human language says that humans developed gestural routines and phonetic skills, and the gestural routines basically migrated over to the phonetic realm (we use our faces, vocal tracts and upper body to SPEAK a language). If two species like hominids and wolves interact, it might overall mean that their paths of evolutions only partly converge. A recent development in human-dog development, or at least one that is obvious, is the fairly recent creation of cute, child-like breeds (while the archetypal dog is still wolf-like in appearance--the Alsatian, the Husky, the Japanese Akita, etc.). Has the co-evolutionary story of humans-dogs more or less hit a deadend for both species (with wolves themselves threatened by extinction and the future of dogs totally dependent on humans' abilities to feed and house them). I'm simply speculating that co-evolution with dogs might well have aided the human development of language--both in a cultural evolutionary and biological evolutionary sense. Since, for example, groups built around humans and dogs would have had to develop a two-species of communication in order to hunt and herd. If you watch a skilled herder with a skilled border collie, you might see something that is quite analogous or even a holdover from when this sort of interaction was how hominids in the human line of developed lived. CJ -- Japan Higher Education Outlook http://japanheo.blogspot.com/ ELT in Japan http://eltinjapan.blogspot.com/ We are Feral Cats http://wearechikineko.blogspot.com/ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] The Evolution of Culture
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0858699.html Encyclopedia—human evolution The Evolution of Culture Among hominids, a parallel evolutionary process involving increased intelligence and cultural complexity is apparent in the material record. Evidence of greater behavioral flexibility and adaptability presumably reflects the decreased influence of genetically encoded behaviors and the increased importance of learning and social interaction in transmitting and maintaining behavioral adaptations (see culture). Because the organization of neural circuitry is more significant than overall cranial capacity in establishing mental capabilities, direct inferences from the fossil record are likely to be misleading. Contemporary humans, for example, exhibit considerable variability in cranial capacity (1150 cc to 1600 cc), none of which is related to intelligence. Tool use was once thought to be the hallmark of members of the genus Homo, beginning with H. habilis, but is now known to be common among chimpanzees. The earliest stone tools of the lower Paleolithic, known as Oldowan tools and dating to about 2 to 2.5 million years ago, were once thought to have been manufactured by H. habilis. Recent finds suggest that Oldowan tools may also have been made by robust australopithecines. The simultaneous emergence of H. erectus and the more complex Achuelian tool tradition may indicate shifting adaptations as much as increased intelligence. While it is clear that H. erectus was much more versatile than any of its predecessors, adapting its technologies and behaviors to diverse environmental conditions, the extent and limitations of its intellectual endowment remain a subject of heated debate. This is also the case for both archaic H. sapiens and Neanderthals, the latter associated with the more sophisticated technologies of the middle Paleolithic. However impressive the achievements of H. erectus and early H. sapiens, most material remains predating 40,000 years ago reflect utilitarian concerns. Nonetheless, there is now scattered African archaeological evidence from before that time (in one case as early as 90,000 years ago) of the production by H. sapiens of beads and other decorative work, perhaps indicating a gradual development of the aesthetic concerns and other symbolic thinking characteristic of later human societies. Whether the emergence of modern H. sapiens corresponds to the explosion of technological innovations and artistic activities associated with Cro-Magnon culture or was a more prolonged process of development is a subject of archaeological debate. Sections in this article: Introduction The Evolutionary Tree Hominid Evolution The Evolution of Culture Bibliography The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2007, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. CitePrintEmailHotWordsBookmark Add bookmark Add to del.icio.us Digg It! Add to Reddit Premium Partner Content Related content from HighBeam Research on: human evolution: The Evolution of Culture Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution.(Book review) (Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute) The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture, and Religion. (Theological Studies) The Whole Creature: Complexity, Biosemiotics and the Evolution of Culture (New Formations) The human predicament and how we got there.(The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment)(Book review) (Ecos) Does man make himself? And what have we done?(The Complete World of Human Evolution)(Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution)(Book Review) (Antiquity) Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution (Northeastern Naturalist) The Origin and Evolution of Cultures (The Australian Journal of Anthropology) Contagious ideas: on evolution, culture, archaeology, and Cultural Virus Theory.(Review) (book review) (Antiquity) The evolution of culture: an interdisciplinary view.(Review) (Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute) That complex whole: culture and the evolution of human behavior.(Review) (Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
