Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cultural Evolution

Suggested Goals for Project:

Cultivate a network of university-based leadership committed to using the Wikipedia Education Program (WEP) Model I suggest one of our goals as a project is to cultivate a network of university-based leadership committed to using the Wikipedia Education Program (WEP) Model to strengthen the network of articles that fall under the interest of Cultural Evolution. This would provide a broad base of continual engagement on these important articles, and also provides valuable service-learning experiences for students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DustinEirdosh (talk • contribs) 10:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC) DustinEirdosh (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation from Wikipedia:Cultural_evolutionism

The current page Cultural Evolutionism obviously needs to be either completely changed and renamed, or perhaps more likely a disambiguation with a new page called simply "Cultural Evolution". Which do you think is the better move?DustinEirdosh (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, there is the significantly better page of Sociocultural Evolution which is perhaps a better starting point? Is there any reason to disambiguate cultural evolution from sociocultural evolution? -DustinEirdosh (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

As this slightly awkward disclaimer in the lead of sociocultural evolution says:

(Note, this article focusses on that use of the term 'socio-cultural evolution' to refer to work that is not in line with contemporary understandings of the word 'evolution'. There is a separate body of academic work which uses the term 'cultural evolution' using a more consensus Darwinian understanding of the term 'evolution'. For a description of this work, based in the foundational work of DT Campbell in the 1960s and followed up by Boyd, Richerson, Cavalli-Sforza, and Feldman in the 1980s, go to Cultural evolution or Dual inheritance theory.)

In other words it's a very detailed discussion of some outdated theories with as I see it only little relevance to the modern field except as historical background. So I don't think it's a very good starting point.

I think we're all agreed we→ need an article for the modern understanding of cultural evolution as a phenomenon and as a field of study, preferably at cultural evolution. We can easily exploit the excess of jargon around this subject to maintain a separate article for the historical social/sociocultural/unilineal/multilineal/neo/Spencer/Morgan/Steward/White evolutionism with disambiguation notices at the top of each.

Whether we base that article on the existing cultural evolutionism or Dual Inheritance Theory articles, or just start from scratch, is another question – as has been discussed at length in the CES working group mailing list. Joe Roe (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I think remove the link to 'cultural evolutionism' page and make a new Cultural Evolution page based on ideas of social transmission. from here, have disambiguation from different uses of the word (like historical theory of progressive change of culture (the sociocultural evolution page) and then links to sub-topics within the cultural evolution or extensions of cultural evolution theory (like Dual Inheritance Theory or a page on cultural niche construction and transmission through artifacts or environmental changes). I'm not sure how to relate to the page that is being developed as 'Cultural Evolutionism'. It seems to be referring to something different and not another approach to the same thing.

I also would suggest changing 'Dual Inheritance Theory' to 'Gene-Culture Coevolution' I know that DIT is a term that was used more at first, but i think i see 'gene-culture coevolution' more used now and it also, as a title for the theory, communicates the concept more immediately, i think than ' Dual Inheritance Theory'. Karl Frost (talk) 14:32 GMT, 15 April 2016

As I suggested earlier, I think it better serves our interests to locate a Wikipedia discussion of Darwinian-inspired theories of cultural evolution within a broader historical and philosophic context. In a work in progress, I write the following:

The emergence of a discipline or subdiscipline represents a moment of divergence within the ongoing, multilinear process of scientific evolution. Proponents employ boundary framing processes to construct new intellectual niches. Boundary framing includes “the embellishment and reconstitution of relevant aspects of the past” (Hunt, Benford, and Snow 1994, p. 195), including the elaboration of a “conventional foundation story” and the establishment of a canon--i.e., “a privileged set of texts, whose interpretation and reinterpretation defines a field” (Connell 1997, p. 1515, 1512). Canons legitimate certain authors, assumptions and concepts while delegitimizing and excluding others. They provide a shared language, identity and sense of cohesion to participants of newly delimited intellectual networks.

I think the above paragraph defines what should be our goal for the Wikipedia page. We are attempting to construct a new intellectual niche for theories of cultural evolution by elaborating a conventional foundation story and establishing a canon. Darwinian theories of cultural evolution did not arise de novo, but from a complex and ongoing intellectual history. I for one, would like to see that history be a central concern of the CES and the Wikipedia page. Thus, I would suggest using the existing Sociocultural Evolution page as a starting point. The discussion there is superficial and has some glaring mistakes, but it could easily be reworked into a conventional foundation story, one which clearly differentiates theories of progress/development from theories of cultural evolution properly so-called.

The reason for the mistakes in the article and the awkward disclaimer that Joe Roe notes, is that the philosophic underpinnings--essentialist versus populational/or frame-invariant versus frame-relative thinking in Sober’s (1980) terminology--of these two sets of theories has not been discussed. Explicitly discussing these issues would:

1) remove the ambiguities in the current article. 2) allow us to further delegitimate theories of progress/development by adding a section which explicitly discusses their shortcomings and clearly identifies the source of those shortcomings. 3) serve to further legitimate populational perspectives on social change by clearly differentiating them from the former, and suggesting how they can and have been used to overcome the shortcomings of developmental theories. 4) move us closer to having a shared language, identity and sense of cohesion for CES.

Finally, I would reiterate that addressing theories of progress and development is not just an historical but very much a contemporary concern. Explicit and implicit versions of these theories still persist in many disciplines. And theories and/or ideologies of development are even more prominent in the political and cultural sphere. One of the reasons for their persistence is this that most social theorists do not understand the underlying philosophical issues. For example, some Ecological Modernization theorists believe that simply rejecting determinism or recognizing agency means that they escape charges of essentialism and developmentalism when, in fact, developmental theories are not deterministic in the first place. The Sociocultural Evolution page makes the same mistake. Likewise, some current attempts to revive Marxian theory in relation to environmental issues deny that Marx was either an essentialist or developmentalist. And, as I have discussed in my work with Thomas Dietz (McLaughlin and Dietz. 2008. GEC 18:99-111), essentialist and nominalist theories still represent a major obstacle to theorizing the human dimensions of climate change. At any rate, that’s one vote for combining old and new theories of evolution into one page. Paul McLaughlin 66.67.50.220 (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)