Cultural evolution

Cultural evolution is an evolutionary theory of social change. It follows from the definition of culture as
"information capable of affecting individuals' behavior that they acquire from other members of their
species through teaching, imitation and other forms of social transmission".[1] Cultural evolution is the
change of this information over time.[2]

Cultural evolution, historically also known as sociocultural evolution, was originally developed in the 19th
century by anthropologists stemming from Charles Darwin's research on evolution. Today, cultural
evolution has become the basis for a growing field of scientific research in the social sciences, including
anthropology, economics, psychology and organizational studies. Previously, it was believed that social
change resulted from biological adaptations, but anthropologists now commonly accept that social changes
arise in consequence of a combination of social, evolutionary and biological influences.[3][4]

There have been a number of different approaches to the study of cultural evolution, including dual
inheritance theory, sociocultural evolution, memetics, cultural evolutionism and other variants on cultural
selection theory. The approaches differ not just in the history of their development and discipline of origin
but in how they conceptualize the process of cultural evolution and the assumptions, theories and methods
that they apply to its study. In recent years, there has been a convergence of the cluster of related theories
towards seeing cultural evolution as a unified discipline in its own right.[5][6]

Contents
History
Unilinear theory
Cultural particularism
Multilinear theory
Memetics
Evolutionary epistemology
Dual inheritance theory
Criticism and controversy
Criticism of historic approaches to cultural evolution
See also
Notes
References
Further reading
Early foundational books
Modern review books
In evolutionary economics
In evolutionary biology
High-profile empirical work
In organisational studies
Organisational memetics
 Evolutionary linguistics
External links

History
Aristotle thought that development of cultural form (such as poetry) stops when it reaches its maturity.[7] In
1873 in Harper's New Monthly Magazine, it was written: "By the principle which Darwin describes as
natural selection short words are gaining the advantage over long words, direct forms of expression are
gaining the advantage over indirect, words of precise meaning the advantage of the ambiguous, and local
idioms are everywhere in disadvantage".[8]

Cultural evolution, in the Darwinian sense of variation and selective inheritance, could be said to trace back
to Darwin himself.[9] He argued for both customs (1874 p. 239) and "inherited habits" as contributing to
human evolution, grounding both in the innate capacity for acquiring language.[10][9][11]

Darwin's ideas, along with those of such as Comte and Quetelet, influenced a number of what would now
be called social scientists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Hodgson and Knudsen[12]
single out David George Ritchie and Thorstein Veblen, crediting the former with anticipating both dual
inheritance theory and universal Darwinism. Despite the stereotypical image of social Darwinism that
developed later in the century, neither Ritchie nor Veblen were on the political right.

The early years of the 20th century and particularly the First World War saw biological concepts and
metaphors shunned by most social sciences. Even uttering the word evolution carried "serious risk to one's
intellectual reputation." Darwinian ideas were also in decline following the rediscovery of Mendelian
genetics but were revived, especially by Fisher, Haldane and Wright, who developed the first population
genetic models and as it became known the modern synthesis.

Cultural evolutionary concepts, or even metaphors, revived more slowly. If there were one influential
individual in the revival it was probably Donald T. Campbell. In 1960[13] he drew on Wright to draw a
parallel between genetic evolution and the "blind variation and selective retention" of creative ideas; work
that was developed into a full theory of "socio-cultural evolution" in 1965[14] (a work that includes
references to other works in the then current revival of interest in the field). Campbell (1965 26) was clear
that he perceived cultural evolution not as an analogy "from organic evolution per se, but rather from a
general model for quasiteleological processes for which organic evolution is but one instance".

Others pursued more specific analogies notably the anthropologist F. T. (Ted) Cloak who argued in
1975[15] for the existence of learnt cultural instructions (cultural corpuscles or i-culture) resulting in material
artefacts (m-culture) such as wheels.[16] The argument thereby introduced as to whether cultural evolution
requires neurological instructions continues to the present day.

Unilinear theory

In the 19th century cultural evolution was thought to follow a unilineal pattern whereby all cultures
progressively develop over time. The underlying assumption was that Cultural Evolution itself led to the
growth and development of civilization.[3][17][18]

Thomas Hobbes in the 17th Century declared indigenous culture to have "no arts, no letters, no society"
and he described facing life as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." He, like other scholars of his time,
reasoned that everything positive and esteemed resulted from the slow development away from this poor
lowly state of being.[3]
Under the theory of unilinear Cultural Evolution, all societies and cultures develop on the same path. The
first to present a general unilineal theory was Herbert Spencer. Spencer suggested that humans develop into
more complex beings as culture progresses, where people originally lived in "undifferentiated hordes"
culture progresses and develops to the point where civilization develops hierarchies. The concept behind
unilinear theory is that the steady accumulation of knowledge and culture leads to the separation of the
various modern day sciences and the build-up of cultural norms present in modern-day society.[3][17]

In Lewis H. Morgan's book Ancient Society (1877), Morgan labels seven differing stages of human culture:
lower, middle, and upper savagery; lower, middle, and upper barbarism; and civilization. He justifies this
staging classification by referencing societies whose cultural traits resembled those of each of his stage
classifications of the cultural progression. Morgan gave no example of lower savagery, as even at the time
of writing few examples remained of this cultural type. At the time of expounding his theory, Morgan's
work was highly respected and became a foundation for much of anthropological study that was to
follow.[3][17][18]

Cultural particularism

There began a widespread condemnation of unilinear theory in the late 19th century. Unilinear cultural
evolution implicitly assumes that culture was borne out of the United States and Western Europe. That was
seen by many to be racist, as it assumed that some individuals and cultures were more evolved than
others.[3]

Franz Boas, a German-born anthropologist, was the instigator of the movement known as 'cultural
particularism' in which the emphasis shifted to a multilinear approach to cultural evolution. That differed to
the unilinear approach that used to be favoured in the sense that cultures were no longer compared, but they
were assessed uniquely. Boas, along with several of his pupils, notably A.L. Kroeber, Ruth Benedict and
Margaret Mead, changed the focus of anthropological research to the effect that instead of generalizing
cultures, the attention was now on collecting empirical evidence of how individual cultures change and
develop.[3]

Multilinear theory

Cultural particularism dominated popular thought for the first half of the 20th century before American
anthropologists, including Leslie A. White, Julian H. Steward, Marshall D. Sahlins, and Elman R. Service,
revived the debate on cultural evolution. These theorists were the first to introduce the idea of multilinear
cultural evolution.[3]

Under multilinear theory, there are no fixed stages (as in unilinear theory) towards cultural development.
Instead, there are several stages of differing lengths and forms. Although, individual cultures develop
differently and cultural evolution occurs differently, multilinear theory acknowledges that cultures and
societies do tend to develop and move forward.[3][19]

Leslie A. White focused on the idea that different cultures had differing amounts of 'energy', White argued
that with greater energy societies could possess greater levels of social differentiation. He rejected
separation of modern societies from primitive societies. In contrast, Steward argued, much like Darwin's
theory of evolution, that culture adapts to its surroundings. 'Evolution and Culture' by Sahlins and Service
is an attempt to condense the views of White and Steward into a universal theory of multilinear
evolution.[3]

Memetics
Richard Dawkins' 1976 book The Selfish Gene proposed the concept of the "meme", which is analogous to
that of the gene. A meme is an idea-replicator that can reproduce itself, by jumping from mind to mind via
the process of one human learning from another via imitation. Along with the "virus of the mind" image,
the meme might be thought of as a "unit of culture" (an idea, belief, pattern of behaviour, etc.), which
spreads among the individuals of a population. The variation and selection in the copying process enables
Darwinian evolution among memeplexes and therefore is a candidate for a mechanism of cultural
evolution. As memes are "selfish" in that they are "interested" only in their own success, they could well be
in conflict with their biological host's genetic interests. Consequently, a "meme's eye" view might account
for certain evolved cultural traits, such as suicide terrorism, that are successful at spreading meme of
martyrdom, but fatal to their hosts and often other people.

Evolutionary epistemology

"Evolutionary epistemology" can also refer to a theory that applies the concepts of biological evolution to
the growth of human knowledge and argues that units of knowledge themselves, particularly scientific
theories, evolve according to selection. In that case, a theory, like the germ theory of disease, becomes more
or less credible according to changes in the body of knowledge surrounding it.

One of the hallmarks of evolutionary epistemology is the notion that empirical testing alone does not justify
the pragmatic value of scientific theories but rather that social and methodological processes select those
theories with the closest "fit" to a given problem. The mere fact that a theory has survived the most rigorous
empirical tests available does not, in the calculus of probability, predict its ability to survive future testing.
Karl Popper used Newtonian physics as an example of a body of theories so thoroughly confirmed by
testing as to be considered unassailable but were nevertheless overturned by Albert Einstein's bold insights
into the nature of space-time. For the evolutionary epistemologist, all theories are true only provisionally,
regardless of the degree of empirical testing they have survived.

Popper is considered by many to have given evolutionary epistemology its first comprehensive treatment,
bur Donald T. Campbell had coined the phrase in 1974.[20]

Dual inheritance theory

Dual inheritance theory (DIT), also known as gene–culture coevolution or biocultural evolution,[21] was
developed in the 1960s through early 1980s to explain how human behavior is a product of two different
and interacting evolutionary processes: genetic evolution and cultural evolution. Genes and culture
continually interact in a feedback loop,[22] changes in genes can lead to changes in culture which can then
influence genetic selection, and vice versa. One of the theory's central claims is that culture evolves partly
through a Darwinian selection process, which dual inheritance theorists often describe by analogy to
genetic evolution.[23]

Criticism and controversy

As a relatively new and growing scientific field, cultural evolution is undergoing much formative debate.
Some of the prominent conversations are revolving around Universal Darwinism,[14][24] dual inheritance
theory,[25] and memetics.[26][27][28][29]

More recently, cultural evolution has drawn conversations from multi-disciplinary sources with movement
towards a unified view between the natural and social sciences. There remains some accusation of
biological reductionism, as opposed to cultural naturalism, and scientific efforts are often mistakenly
associated with Social Darwinism. However, some useful parallels between biological and social evolution
still appear to be found.[30]
Criticism of historic approaches to cultural evolution

Cultural evolution has been criticized over the past two centuries that it has advanced its development into
the form it holds today. Morgan's theory of evolution implies that all cultures follow the same basic pattern.
Human culture is not linear, different cultures develop in different directions and at differing paces, and it is
not satisfactory or productive to assume cultures develop in the same way.[31]

A further key critique of cultural evolutionism is what is known as "armchair anthropology". The name
results from the fact that many of the anthropologists advancing theories had not seen first hand the cultures
they were studying. The research and data collected was carried out by explorers and missionaries as
opposed to the anthropologists themselves. Edward Tylor was the epitome of that and did very little of his
own research.[28][31] Cultural evolution is also criticized for being ethnocentric; cultures are still seen as
attempting to emulate western civilization. Under ethnocentricity, primitive societies are said to not yet be at
the cultural levels of other Western societies.[31][32]

Much of the criticism aimed at cultural evolution is focused on the unilinear approach to social change.
Broadly speaking in the second half of the 20th century the criticisms of cultural evolution have been
answered by the multilinear theory. Ethnocentricity, for example, is more prevalent under the unilinear
theory.[31][28][32]

Some recent approaches, such as dual inheritance theory, make use of empirical methods including
psychological and animal studies, field site research, and computational models.[33]

See also
Behavioral ecology – Study of the evolutionary basis for animal behavior due to ecological
pressures
Cliodynamics – Mathematical modeling of historical processes
Cognitive ecology – Branch of ecology studying cognition in social and natural contexts
Cultural group selection – Model of cultural evolution
Cultural selection theory – Study of cultural change modelled on theories of evolutionary
biology
Dual inheritance theory – Theory of human behavior
Spatial ecology – Study of the distribution or space occupied by species

Notes
1. J., Richerson, Peter (2005). Not by genes alone : how culture transformed human evolution.
Boyd, Robert, 1948-. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226712840.
OCLC 54806438 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/54806438).
2. "What is Cultural Evolution" (https://culturalevolutionsociety.org/story/What_is_Cultural_Evol
ution). Retrieved 2018-06-22.
3. "cultural evolution | social science" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/cultural-evolution).
Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2017-03-30.
4. "Cultural Evolution Theory Definition" (https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-cultural-evolutio
n-170546). ThoughtCo. Retrieved 2017-03-30.
 5. Mesoudi, Alex; Whiten, Andrew; Laland, Kevin N. (2006-08-01). "Towards a unified science
of cultural evolution". The Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 29 (4): 329–347, discussion 347–
383. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.612.2415 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.
612.2415). doi:10.1017/S0140525X06009083 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0140525X0600
9083). ISSN 0140-525X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0140-525X). PMID 17094820 (https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17094820).
6. Mesoudi, Alex (2011). Cultural Evolution: How Darwinian theory can explain human culture
and synthesize the social sciences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
ISBN 9780226520445.
7. Edel, Abraham (1 January 1995). Aristotle and His Philosophy (https://books.google.com/bo
oks?id=7jzHK-bfxyIC&q=Aristotle+and+His+Philosophy&pg=PA352). Transaction
Publishers. ISBN 9781412817462 – via Google Books.
8. The Information: A History, A Theory, A Flood, by James Gleic, 2012, p. 174
9. Richerson, P.J. and Boyd. R. (2010) The Darwinian theory of human cultural evolution and
gene-culture coevolution. Chapter 20 in Evolution Since Darwin: The First 150 Years. M.A.
Bell, D.J. Futuyma, W.F. Eanes, and J.S. Levinton, (eds.) Sinauer, pp. 561-588.
10. Darwin 1871, p. 74.
11. Price, I. (2012b) Organizational Ecologies and Declared Realities, In K. Alexander and I.
Price (eds.) Managing Organizational Ecologies: Space, Management and Organization.
New York, Routledge, 11-22.
12. Hodgson, G.M. and Knudsen, T. (2010). Darwin's Conjecture: The Search for General
Principles of Social and Economic Evolution. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
13. Campbell, D. T. (1960). "Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other
knowledge processes". Psychological Review. 67 (6): 380–400. doi:10.1037/h0040373 (http
s://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0040373). PMID 13690223 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13690
223).
14. Campbell, D. T. (1965). "Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution". Social
Change in Developing Areas, a Reinterpretation of Evolutionary Theory.
15. Cloak, F. T. (1975). "Is a Cultural Ethology Possible?". Human Ecology 3(3) 161–182.
16. Cloak, F. T. (1968). "Cultural Darwinism: Natural selection of the spoked wheel"
17. "Unilinear cultural evolution - Oxford Reference" (http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1
093/oi/authority.20110803110706530).
18. "Cultural Evolutionism, Anthropology, Cultural Anthropology, Definition of Anthropology,
Anthropology Definition, Physical Anthropology, Sociology Guide" (http://www.sociologyguid
e.com/anthropology/main-approaches-to-the-study-of-society-and-culture/cultural-evolutioni
sm.php). www.sociologyguide.com. Retrieved 2017-03-30.
19. "multilinear cultural evolution - oi" (http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.201
10803100215750).
20. (Schilpp, 1974)Schilpp, P. A., ed. The Philosophy of Karl R. Popper. LaSalle, IL. Open Court.
1974. See Campbell's essay, "Evolutionary Epistemology" on pp. 412–463.
21. O'Neil, Dennis. "Glossary of Terms"
(http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/glossary.htm#sectB). Modern Theories of Evolution.
Retrieved 28 October 2012.
22. Laland, Kevin N. (2008-11-12). "Exploring gene–culture interactions: insights from
handedness, sexual selection and niche-construction case studies" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.ni
h.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2607340). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences. 363 (1509): 3577–3589. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0132 (https://doi.org/10.
1098%2Frstb.2008.0132). ISSN 0962-8436 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0962-8436).
PMC 2607340 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2607340). PMID 18799415
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18799415).
23. Richerson, Peter J.; Boyd, Robert (2005). Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed
Human Evolution (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/N/bo3615170.ht
ml). University of Chicago Press.
24. Cziko, Gary (1995) Without Miracles: Universal Selection Theory and the Second Darwinian
Revolution (MIT Press)
25. E. O. Wilson, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, New York, Knopf, 1998.
26. Dawkins, Richard (1989). The Selfish Gene (2nd ed.). United Kingdom: Oxford University
Press. ISBN 0-19-286092-5.
27. Blackmore, Susan (1999) The Meme Machine (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.
ISBN 0198503652.
28. "Disciplines and Institutions. What is Armchair Anthropology? – CRASSH" (http://www.crass
h.cam.ac.uk/events/24708). www.crassh.cam.ac.uk. 8 July 2012. Retrieved 2017-03-30.
29. Dennett, Daniel C. (2005), Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Touchstone Press, New York. pp. 352–
360.
30. Grinin, L.; Markov, A.; Korotayev, A. (2013). "On similarities between biological and social
evolutionary mechanisms: Mathematical modeling" (https://doi.org/10.21237%2FC7CLIO42
21334). Cliodynamics: The Journal of Quantitative History and Cultural Evolution. 4 (2).
doi:10.21237/C7CLIO4221334 (https://doi.org/10.21237%2FC7CLIO4221334).
31. "Theory + Anthropology [licensed for non-commercial use only] / Cultural Evolution" (http://a
nthrotheory.pbworks.com/w/page/29531638/Cultural%20Evolution#Critiques).
anthrotheory.pbworks.com. Retrieved 2017-03-30.
32. "Evolutionary Theories of Social Change | Cape Sociology" (http://capesociology.org/evoluti
onary-theories-of-social-change). capesociology.org. Retrieved 2017-03-30.
33. Mesoudi, Alex; Whiten, Andrew; Laland, Kevin N. (August 2006). "Towards a unified science
of cultural evolution". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 29 (4): 329–347.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.612.2415 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.612.
2415). doi:10.1017/S0140525X06009083 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0140525X0600908
3). ISSN 1469-1825 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1469-1825). PMID 17094820 (https://pub
med.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17094820).

References
Bock, Kenneth E. (1956), The Acceptance of Histories: Toward a Perspective for Social
Science, Berkeley: University of California Press
Bock, Kenneth E. (1978), "Theories of Progress, Development, Evolution", in Bottomore, T.;
Nisbet, R. (eds.), A History of Sociological Analysis, New York: Basic Books, pp. 39–79
Bowler, Peter J. (1984), Evolution: The History of an Idea, Berkeley: University of California
Press
Darwin, C. R. (1871), The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, John Murray
Degrood, David H. (1976), Philosophies of Essence: An Examination of the Category of
Essence, Amsterdam: B. R. Gruner Publishing Company
 Dietz, Thomas; Burns, Thomas R.; Buttel, Frederick H. (1990), "Evolutionary Theory in
Sociology: An Examination of Current Thinking", Sociological Forum, 4: 47–70,
doi:10.1007/BF01112616 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF01112616), S2CID 145188414 (htt
ps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:145188414)
Lennox, James G. (1987), "Kinds, Forms of Kinds and the More and the Less in Aristotle's
Biology", in Gotthelf, A.; Lennox, J.G. (eds.), Philosophical Issues in Aristotle's Biology,
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 339–359
Lovejoy, Arthur O. (1936), The Great Chain of Being, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press
McLaughlin, Paul (1998), "Rethinking the Agrarian Question: The Limits of Essentialism and
the Promise of Evolutionism", Human Ecology Review, 5 (2): 25–39
McLaughlin, Paul (2012), "The Second Darwinian Revolution: Steps Toward a New
Evolutionary Environmental Sociology", Nature and Culture, 7 (3): 231–258,
doi:10.3167/nc.2012.070301 (https://doi.org/10.3167%2Fnc.2012.070301)
Nisbet, Robert (1969), Social Change and History, New York: Oxford University Press
Richards, Richard A. (2010), The Species Problem: A Philosophical Analysis, New York:
Cambridge University Press
Rist, Gilbert (2002), The History of Development: From Western Origins to Global Faith, New
York: Zed Books
Sober, Elliot (1980), "Evolution, Population Thinking, and Essentialism", Philosophy of
Science, 47 (3): 350–383, doi:10.1086/288942 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2F288942),
S2CID 170129617 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:170129617)

Further reading

Early foundational books

Boyd, R.; Richerson, P.J. (1985). Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Cavalli-Sforza, L.L; Feldman, M.W (1981). Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A
Quantitative Approach, Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press.
Dawkins, R (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
D. C., Dennett (1995). Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life.
London: Penguin.
Hull, D. L (1988). Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and
Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Toulmin, S. (1972). Human Understanding: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Waddington, C. H. (1977). Tools for Thought: How to Understand and Apply the Latest
Scientific Techniques of Problem Solving. New York: Basic Books.

Modern review books

Mesoudi, A (2011). Cultural evolution: how Darwinian theory can explain human culture and
synthesize the social sciences. University of Chicago Press
Distin, K (2005). The selfish meme: A critical reassessment. Cambridge UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Distin, K (2010). Cultural evolution. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
 Henrich, J (2015). The Secret of Our Success: How Culture is Driving Human Evolution,
Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter. Princeton UK: Princeton University
Press.
Richerson, P.J. and Christiansen, M., K (2013). Cultural Evolution: Society, Technology,
Language, and Religion. The MIT Press.

In evolutionary economics
Aldrich, H. E.; Hodgson, G. M; Hull, D. L.; Knudsen, T.; Mokyr, J.; Vanberg, V. (2008). "In
defence of generalized Darwinism". Journal of Evolutionary Economics. 18 (5): 577–596.
doi:10.1007/s00191-008-0110-z (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00191-008-0110-z).
hdl:2299/5447 (https://hdl.handle.net/2299%2F5447). S2CID 16438396 (https://api.semantic
scholar.org/CorpusID:16438396).
Hodgson, G. M.; Knudsen, T (2004). "The firm as an interactor: firms as vehicles for habits
and routines". Journal of Evolutionary Economics. 14 (3): 281–307. doi:10.1007/s00191-
004-0192-1 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00191-004-0192-1). hdl:2299/407 (https://hdl.handl
e.net/2299%2F407). S2CID 4488784 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4488784).
Hodgson, G. M.; Knudsen, T. (2006). "Dismantling Lamarckism: why descriptions of socio-
economic evolution as Lamarckian are misleading". Journal of Evolutionary Economics. 16
(4): 343–366. doi:10.1007/s00191-006-0019-3 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00191-006-0019
-3). hdl:2299/3281 (https://hdl.handle.net/2299%2F3281). S2CID 4488606 (https://api.seman
ticscholar.org/CorpusID:4488606).
Hodgson, G.M.; Knudsen, T. (2010). Darwin's Conjecture: The Search for General Principles
of Social and Economic Evolution. Chicago; London: University Of Chicago Press.
Brown, G.R.; Richerson, P.J. (2013). "Applying evolutionary theory to human behaviour: past
differences and current debates". Journal of Bioeconomics. 16 (2): 105–128.
doi:10.1007/s10818-013-9166-4 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10818-013-9166-4).
hdl:10023/5350 (https://hdl.handle.net/10023%2F5350). S2CID 16142589 (https://api.seman
ticscholar.org/CorpusID:16142589).
Bisin, A; Verdier, T. (2001). "The Economics of Cultural Transmission and the Dynamics of
Preferences". Journal of Economic Theory. 97 (2): 298–319. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.336.3854 (htt
ps://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.336.3854).
doi:10.1006/jeth.2000.2678 (https://doi.org/10.1006%2Fjeth.2000.2678).
Field, A.J. (2008). "Why multilevel selection matters" (https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/vi
ewcontent.cgi?article=1104&context=econ). Journal of Bioeconomics. 10 (3): 203–238.
doi:10.1007/s10818-007-9018-1 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10818-007-9018-1).
S2CID 144733058 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144733058).
Wilson, D.S.; Ostrom, E; Cox, M.E. (2013). "Generalizing the core design principles for the
efficacy of groups". Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 90, supplement: S21–
S32. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.010 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jebo.2012.12.010).
S2CID 143645561 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:143645561).

In evolutionary biology
Lindenfors, P. (2017). For whose benefit? The biological and cultural evolution of
cooperation. Springer.
Jablonka, E., Lamb, M.J., (2014). Evolution in Four Dimensions, revised edition: Genetic,
Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life. MIT Press.
Gould, S. J.; Vrba, E. S. (1982). "Exaptation – a missing term in the science of form".
Paleobiology. 8 (8): 4–15. doi:10.1017/S0094837300004310 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0
094837300004310).
High-profile empirical work
Murmann, P. J. (2013). "The coevolution of industries and important features of their
environments". Organization Science. 24: 58–78. doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0718 (https://doi.or
g/10.1287%2Forsc.1110.0718). S2CID 12825492 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:
12825492).
Chen, M. K. (2013). "The Effect of Language on Economic Behavior: Evidence from Savings
Rates, Health Behaviors, and Retirement Assets". American Economic Review. 103 (2):
690–731. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.371.3223 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=1
0.1.1.371.3223). doi:10.1257/aer.103.2.690 (https://doi.org/10.1257%2Faer.103.2.690).
PMID 29524925 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29524925).

In organisational studies
Baldwin, J.; Anderssen, C. R.; Ridgway, K. (2013). "Hierarchical and cladistic classifications
of manufacturing systems: a basis for applying generalised Darwinism?". Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Management. Istanbul.
Baum, J. A. C. (1994). Singh, J. V. (ed.). "Evolutionary dynamics of organizations". New
York: Oxford University Press: 1–22.
Baum, J. A. C. (2007). "Cultural group selection in organization studies". Organization
Studies. 28: 37–47. doi:10.1177/0170840607073567 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F01708406
07073567). S2CID 143456734 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:143456734).
Campbell, D. T. (1965). "Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution" (https://
archive.org/details/socialchangeinde0000barr). In Barringer, H. R.; Blanksten, G. I. & Mack,
R. W. (eds.). Social change in developing areas: A reinterpretation of evolutionary theory.
Cambridge MA: Schenkman. pp. 19–48 (https://archive.org/details/socialchangeinde0000ba
rr/page/19).
Campbell, D. T. (1976). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Hanover NH, The
Public Affairs Center, Dartmouth College.
Campbell, D. T. (1997). Heyes, C.; Frankel, B. (eds.). "From evolutionary epistemology via
selection theory to a sociology of scientific validity". Evolution and Cognition (3): 5–38.
DiMaggio, P. J.; Powell, W. W. (1983). "The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism
and collective rationality in organizational fields". American Sociological Review. 48 (2):
147–160. doi:10.2307/2095101 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2095101). JSTOR 2095101 (htt
ps://www.jstor.org/stable/2095101).
Hull, D. L. (1990). "Conceptual evolution: A response: Proceedings of the BiennialMeeting
of the Philosophy of Science Association" (Vol. Two: Symposia and Invited Papers): 255–
264.
Hodgson, G. M. (2013). "Understanding organizational evolution: Toward a research agenda
using generalized Darwinism". Organization Studies. 34 (7): 973–992.
doi:10.1177/0170840613485855 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0170840613485855).
hdl:2299/11194 (https://hdl.handle.net/2299%2F11194). S2CID 144988041 (https://api.sema
nticscholar.org/CorpusID:144988041).
McCarthy, I. P.; Leseure, M.; Ridgway, K.; N., Fieller. (1997). "Building manufacturing
cladograms". International Journal of Technology Management. 13 (1): 269–286.
doi:10.1504/IJTM.1997.001664 (https://doi.org/10.1504%2FIJTM.1997.001664).
McKelvey, B. (1978). "Organizational systematics: Taxonomic lessons from biology".
Management Science. 24 (13): 1428–1440. doi:10.1287/mnsc.24.13.1428 (https://doi.org/10.
1287%2Fmnsc.24.13.1428).
McKelvey, B. (1997). "Perspective—quasi-natural organization science" (https://doi.org/10.1
287%2Forsc.8.4.351). Organization Science. 8 (4): 351–380. doi:10.1287/orsc.8.4.351 (http
 s://doi.org/10.1287%2Forsc.8.4.351).
Moldoveanu, M. C.; Baum, J. A. C. (2002). "Contemporary debates in organizational
epistemology". In Baum, J. A. C. (ed.). The Blackwell companion to organizations. Oxford:
Blackwell. pp. 731–751.
Reydon, A. C.; Scholz, M. T. (2009). "Why organizational ecology is not a Darwinian
research program" (http://www.repo.uni-hannover.de/handle/123456789/3090). Philosophy
of the Social Sciences. 39 (3): 408–439. doi:10.1177/0048393108325331 (https://doi.org/10.
1177%2F0048393108325331). S2CID 143657644 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusI
D:143657644).
Reydon, A. C.; Scholz, M. T. (2014). "Darwinism and organizational ecology: a case of
incompleteness or incompatibility?" (http://www.repo.uni-hannover.de/handle/123456789/23
24). Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 44 (3): 365–374. doi:10.1177/0048393113491634 (h
ttps://doi.org/10.1177%2F0048393113491634). S2CID 145799366 (https://api.semanticscho
lar.org/CorpusID:145799366).
Richerson, P. J.; Collins, D.; Genet, R. M. (2006). "Why managers need an evolutionary
theory of organizations" (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1476127006064069). Strategic
Organization. 4 (2): 201–211. doi:10.1177/1476127006064069 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1
476127006064069).
Røvik, K. A. (2011). "From Fashion to Virus: An Alternative Theory of Organizations'
Handling of Management Ideas". Organization Studies. 32 (5): 631–653.
doi:10.1177/0170840611405426 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0170840611405426).
S2CID 145677276 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:145677276).
Scholz, M. T.; Reydon, A. C. (2013). "On the explanatory power of generalized Darwinism:
Missing items on the research agenda" (http://www.repo.uni-hannover.de/handle/12345678
9/2361). Organization Studies. 34 (7): 993–999. doi:10.1177/0170840613485861 (https://do
i.org/10.1177%2F0170840613485861). S2CID 144634135 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/
CorpusID:144634135).
Stoelhorst, J. W.; Richerson, P. J. (2013). "A naturalistic theory of economic organization".
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 90: S45–S56.
doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.012 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jebo.2012.12.012).
Sammut-Bonnici, T.; Wensley, R. (2002). "Darwinism, probability and complexity: market-
based organizational transformation and change explained through the theories of
evolution" (http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/57024/1/WRAP_Sammut-Bonnici_httpwrap%20warwic
k%20ac%20uk57024%20%282%29.pdf) (PDF). International Journal of Management
Reviews. 4 (3): 291–315. doi:10.1111/1468-2370.00088 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1468-2
370.00088).
Terreberry, S. (1968). "The evolution of organizational environments". Administrative
Science Quarterly. 12 (4): 590–613. doi:10.2307/2391535 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F23915
35). JSTOR 2391535 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2391535).

Organisational memetics
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). "Society, culture, and person: a systems view of creativity". In
Sternberg, R. J (ed.). The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives.
New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 325–39.
Price, I (1995). "Organisational memetics?: Organisational learning as a selection process"
(http://shura.shu.ac.uk/4035/1/Organisational_Memetics.pdf) (PDF). Management Learning.
26 (3): 299–318. doi:10.1177/1350507695263002 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F13505076952
63002). S2CID 142689036 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:142689036).
Deacon, T. W. (1999). "Memes as Signs in the Dynamic Logic of Semiosis: Molecular
Science meets Computation Theory".
 Lord, A. S.; Price, I. (2001). "Reconstruction of organisational phylogeny from memetic
similarity analysis: Proof of feasibility". Journal of Memetics—Evolutionary Models of
Information Transmission. 5 (2).
Hodgson, G. M.; Knudsen, T. (2008). "Information, complexity and generative replication".
Biology and Philosophy. 43: 47–65. doi:10.1007/s10539-007-9073-y (https://doi.org/10.100
7%2Fs10539-007-9073-y). hdl:2299/3277 (https://hdl.handle.net/2299%2F3277).
S2CID 4490737 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4490737).
Langrish, J. Z. (2004). "Darwinian Design: The Memetic Evolution of Design Ideas". Design
Issues. 20 (4): 4–19. doi:10.1162/0747936042311968 (https://doi.org/10.1162%2F07479360
42311968). S2CID 57561867 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:57561867).
Weeks, J.; Galunic, C. (2003). "A theory of the cultural evolution of the firm: The intra-
organizational ecology of memes". Organization Studies. 24 (8): 1309–1352.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.126.6468 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.126.
6468). doi:10.1177/01708406030248005 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F01708406030248005).
S2CID 146334815 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:146334815).

Evolutionary linguistics
Kirby, S. (2007). "The evolution of language". In Dunbar, R; Barret, L. (eds.). Oxford
handbook of evolutionary psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 669–681.
Feldman, C. F. (1987). "Thought from Language: the linguistic construction of cognitive
representations". In Bruner, J.; Haste, H. (eds.). Making.

External links
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution-cultural/
Cultural Evolution Society (https://culturalevolutionsociety.org/)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_evolution&oldid=1100323331"

This page was last edited on 25 July 2022, at 09:31 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0;

additional terms may apply. By
using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.