Examining Cultural Evolution through Proposed Lenses (Riya Johnson)

Yet, the model has faced significant criticism because it potentially promotes environmental determinism by disregarding factors besides environment that influence cultural development, such as individual agency. Even early in the ecological analysis of culture, environmental possibilists believed that humans, in addition to environments, shape cultures although they were opposed by environmental determinists, who did hold that human cultures were passively molded by mechanical forces of nature. Evidently, the former perceived human societies as taking an active rather than passive approach to responding to environmental changes. Specifically, they asserted that humans can select which aspects of their environments contribute to their cultures, overcome environmental restrictions, and even make this process a two-way street by affecting their environments as they affect them. Beyond this binary, some endorsed a combination of environmental determinism and possibilism; they thought that environmental conditions influence cultural development while leaving cultures with a degree of choice as to how they do so. With ongoing debate about the extent to which human societies’ environments dictate their cultures, the “correct” perception of cultural ecology remains unclear, but what is clear is its admirable consideration of the intersection of science and culture.

Amongst the tenets of postmodernism is deconstruction, which involves studying texts, symbols, and social practices with the aim of recognizing biases and the marginalization of some voices, such as those of colonized peoples, in dominant narratives. Due to postmodernists’ beliefs in subjectivity and cultural pluralism, they hold that history and culture are not objective and thus must be explained through different groups’ interpretations of them as opposed to a single narrative. Their amplification of historically marginalized voices parallels their promotion of cultural contributions made by members of subcultures and countercultures, such as street art or graffiti, which rebel against traditional art forms. Moreover, postmodernists believe that knowledge and power structures are intertwined, for powerful groups and institutions can dictate what constitutes valid knowledge and, consequently, cultural norms.For instance, everyday conduct such as hyperactivity has been medicalized, but postmodernists wonder how this categorization of normal and abnormal behaviors could benefit certain industries, such as pharmaceutical and medical device ones. Therefore, they emphasize the need to consider the sources of the information that develops into norms.

Despite its evident merits, postmodernism, as all proposed models to explain cultural change are, is not without its shortcomings. According to some skeptics, postmodernists’ assertion that all perspectives are equally legitimate prevents recognition that some are unjust and thus impedes beneficial social change. Others suspect that postmodernism can encourage nihilism–the belief that life lacks meaning or purpose and that traditional values have no basis in fact–due to its emphasis on the inexistence of universal, objective truths. Likewise, although deconstruction can provide a more just, unbiased analytical lens, its focus on questioning and criticizing dominant narratives, power structures, and ostensibly universal truths can de-emphasize forming positive alternatives to the modern world. Yet, this criticism does not apply to constructive postmodernism, which supports suggesting ways to construct such alternatives in addition to deconstructing aspects of modernity, just as disapproval of environmental determinism is irrelevant to some subsets of cultural ecology.

A third approach involves studying cultural evolution via the development of economic concepts, including the division of labor and social inequalities, which inform the organization of human societies. However, limitations to this method arise when archeologists try to apply it to more ancient societies that existed before the formation of the industrial world, for labor divisions and social inequalities were not prevalent at the time. For instance, although some scholars write of gender- and age-based labor divisions within foraging societies, they acknowledge the flexibility of the sexes’ roles. Moreover, foraging societies were often far more egalitarian than industrialized ones, for they lacked clear class, status, wealth, and power distinctions as well as full-time political leaders.