SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS Michaelmas 2017 Dr Michael Biggs. 7. Evolution. SociologicalAnalysis.shtml!

Transcription

1 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS Michaelmas 2017 Dr Michael Biggs 7. Evolution SociologicalAnalysis.shtml!

2 Recapitulation How to explain outbreaks of collective protest? Exogenous changes in circumstances are not sufficient to explain magnitude Rational self-interest cannot explain contribution to collective protest free rider problem (Mancur Olson) People act because others have done so rational greater chance of success, lower cost emotional collective effervescence (Durkheim) albeit does not explain first movers Diffusion: social networks, printed newspapers, online media Similarities across different episodes?

3 Differentiation/distinction Diffusion intuition: prob(y it = 1) increases monotonically with It is also plausible to think that in some cases the relationship reverses, especially as approaches N motive for differentiation/anti-conformity e.g. fashion, in clothing or ideas Twin thresholds: threshold for stopping as well as starting (Granovetter 1978) Style of explanation J j=1 Y jt 1

4 Skirt width (at hem), 5-year moving average,

5 Ratchet effect (Lieberson 2000) new tastes are based on existing tastes therefore change is incremental new tastes must be distinguished from older tastes (last year and previous years) therefore fashion cannot easily backtrack when a physical barrier is reached, some other characteristic changes dramatically to distinguish new from old Assumption that fashions percolate from high to low status (Simmel 1904), but recent evidence does not seem to support (e.g. Lieberson on names) More dynamic than plain diffusion: perpetual disequilibrium

6 Natural selection Darwin s theory is the paradigm of a dynamic explanation Three elements (Hull 2001): replication of genes maintains continuity variation of genes random with respect to fitness interaction of organisms with environment, such that replication is differential the fittest organisms are most likely to replicate their genes Justifies functionalism: traits have beneficial consequences for the organism Can we use the same process to explain social phenomena? Must carefully distinguish different levels

7 1. Culture is adaptive vis à vis environment Intentional explanation is not sufficient: the results of innovation cannot be foreseen, especially cumulative Differential replication because people with inferior culture (i) eliminated extension of natural selection (ii) adopt superior culture Example: technology Norse in Greenland (Dugmore et al. 2012)

8 2. Culture is adaptive for the collective vis à vis individual Individual self-interest can produce inferior outcome (Hobbes) norms of cooperation may create a better outcome a tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage and sympathy, were always ready to give aid to each other and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes (Darwin 1871) Problem: every individual has an incentive to violate the norm! how could norms be maintained? Functionalist account of religion (Wilson 2002) e.g. Stark (1996) on the rise of Christianity: Roman cities are chaotic and deadly Christians help each other during outbreaks of disease (i) they are more likely to survive natural selection (ii) pagans are impressed and thus convert

9 3. Culture is adaptive for itself vis à vis humans Shift to seeing humans as the environment for culture meme: unit of information in the brain, analogous to gene (Dawkins 1982) Memes compete with each other to replicate the teddy bear: survival of the cutest (Hinde & Bardon 1985; Morris, Reddy, & Bunting 1995) replication may entail harming the host; e.g. lancet fluke

10 Religion as virus of the mind (Dawkins 1993) conflates harm with irrationality, e.g. belief that mystery is a virtue what are the criteria for evaluating the rationality of beliefs? Real harm: religious martyrdom? contrast value-rationality! Georges du Mesnil de La Tour St Sebastien Attended by St Irene ( )

11 4. Selection of organizations Competition among organizations like firms (e.g. Hannan & Freeman 1989; Nelson & Winter 1982) or states superior organizations survive inferior organizations either imitate them or die does not require intentional rationality by individuals; undirected variation Problems: many types of organizations face minimal selection pressure universities states within European/World state system even with firms, how to treat mergers?

12 Problems Evidence of literal extinction is scarce, at least in recent history Hard to measure fitness in a way that is not tautological Memes difficult to identify (Aunger ed. 2000) behaviour or idea? a religion like Christianity comprises innumerable elements culture emphasizes coherence of entire worldview (Weber) Virtues: population thinking is useful regardless (Richerson & Boyd 2005) variation not just mean/ ideal type returns to big questions like religion, long-term cultural change

13 References Andrew J. Dugmore et al., Cultural Adaptation, Compounding Vulnerabilities and Conjunctures in Norse Greenland, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109 (2012) David L. Hull, Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science (1988) Michael T. Hannan & John Freeman, Organizational Ecology (1989) Stanley Lieberson, A Matter of Taste: How Names, Fashions, and Culture Change, 2000 David L. Hull, Science and Selection: Essays on Biological Evolution and the Philosophy of Science (2001) Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity (1996) David Sloan Wilson, Darwin s Cathedral (2002) Peter J. Richerson & Robert Boyd, Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution (2005) Robert Aunger (ed.), Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science (2000) Richard Dawkins, The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene (1982) Richard Dawkins, Viruses of the Mind, Bo Dahlbohm (ed.), Dennett and His Critics: Demystifying Mind (1993)