Why do we behave in certain ways according to where we live and with whom? Can it be explained by Darwinians? Here are some ideas I had...
Can we explain certain cultural features in Darwinian terms?
There are three main theories concerning the development of culture. The first two, focusing on sexual selection, explain how some cultural traits such as creativity are attractive to potential mates, so are passed on to offspring. The third sees it as more of an explosion from nothing. I argue that all theories are compatible, for though cultural features may have appeared out of nowhere, the development of such features is due to sexual selection.
The idea that culture can be developed through sexual selection was suggested first by Miller. He wrote that if there are certain inheritable characteristics that are attractive to potential mates, these tendencies with multiply, for a male who has the artistic inheritable traits will get more mates and thus produce more offspring with such traits.
As specified in Bateman's Principle, in most species, the female chooses the mate because the female has fewer chances of reproduction over a lifetime and therefore want to ensure that they have chosen a suitable partner, whose traits their offspring will inherit. Females also have the cost of bearing and raising young.
By contrast, males go for quantity; they want to produce as many offspring as possible, so don't need to select as carefully.
In the search for a suitable male, females generally look for protection, ability to provide for them and for good genes. If they find a mate with good genes their offspring will be stronger and therefore will have a better chance of producing offspring themselves. Neo-Darwinists claim that a creatures main aim in life is to pass on their genes as much as possible; it is part of the necessity for survival.
Therefore, the females search for the best possible genes for their offspring in their choice of a mate
Because of this, in most species, the male is the more beautiful: for example, the peacock's tale, a duck's green head, a stag's antlers
Many believe that because male beauty doesn't aid natural selection, it must be due to the fact that the females find it attractive. Fisher claims that males are just subject to the whims of the female taste. He writes that once a fashion develops among females, then males that don't possess the trend are not selected and thus cannot reproduce. Any female that does buck the trend will find that her sons will not be selected, so it would seem counter-productive for her to do so.
This idea is supported by the arbitrariness of certain traits, which look as though they hinder fitness
Wallace agrees with this theory, but also states that such traits could be a sign of good health.
Some seem to be correlated with the success of fighting and survival, which females could recognise. For example, Malo has suggested that large antlers in red deer stags signals fertility to the does.
Thus, male beauty could be seen as a reliable signal that contains information about good genes
Could it be the same when talking about humans?
Culture, rather than a system for transmitting useful technical knowledge and group-benefiting traditions down through the generations, can be considered an arena for various courtship displays in which individuals try to attract and retain sexual partners.
When a young male rock star stands up in front of a crowd and produces some pieces of human "culture" known as songs, he is not improving his survival prospects. Nor is he engaging in some bizarre maladaptive behaviour that requires some new process of "cultural evolution" to explain. Rather, he is doing something that fulfills exactly the same function as a male nightingale singing or a male peacock showing off his tail. He is attracting sexual partners. And “the fact that most publicly generated "cultural" behaviour is produced by young males points towards its courtship function.” (Miller)
Despite this, the handicap principle states that some features of male beauty appear as though they ought to put the creature to risk; the peacock's tail is cumbersome and so make it harder for the bird to hide from danger. In response to this, Zahavi has suggested that such seemingly irrelevant traits are proof that the male is sufficiently fit; with its cumbersome tail, a male peacock still fit enough to survive proves its strength.
In humans, this isn't the case, but cultural production could be viewed as "wasteful" for there are no clear survival benefits and it depends on the potential mates preferences. In answer to this, it should be noted that the cultural courtship model proposes that sexual selection through mate choice by both our male and female ancestors was a major evolutionary force in shaping human culture, i.e. the genetically inherited capacities for behaviours such as language, art, and music. These behaviours, according to this model, function mainly as courtship displays to attract sexual partners, and show many of the same design features shared by other courtship displays in other species. In short, human culture is mainly a set of adaptations for courtship.
Thus, Miller's second theory stating how we can explain cultural features in Darwinian terms investigations the attraction to "Protean" behaviour. Such behaviour is unpredictable and creative, which is of benefit in self protection.
As a result, it is attractive to females because it indicates an ability to provide and protect
So, selection for "protean" behaviour may also be selection for artistic and cultural creativity
In the same way, protean behaviour may have developed because males understood that this was attractive to females. It is a theory of circular form; females find protean behaviour in males attractive and males behave in a protean way to attract females.
The third and final theory was raised by Mithen. He claimed that there is evidence for a cultural explosion 30,000 to 60,000 years ago, that he names the "Big Bang": the first cave paintings were created, people were burying their dead rather than leaving them to rot, and men were designing tools to do specific jobs, such as hunting game. In other words, art, religion and science, in their most basic forms, were emerging.
He points out the usefulness of such culture in hunter-gather terms; a hunter that can impose a human mind on an animal can predict how it will behave, for he will have a tremendous competitive advantage. If he can tailor tools for hunting particular animals, he will hunt more effectively. That requires him to mix his knowledge of artefacts, humans and animals.
In other words, as soon as the culture appeared to females as an advantage, they began to select those with such cultural features
Finally, the capacity to appreciate art seems to be futile. However, Currie has suggested that such a trait will allow a female to select the best male, one with more or better cultural features that aid its survival that could be passed on to her offspring.
In conclusion, therefore, cultural features seem to be entirely explicable in Darwinian terms as they appear to be necessary in all species survival techniques.
