1 / 48

Plenary Talk

Plenary Talk. International Conference on Complex Systems 2002 Nashua, New Hampshire June 5 - 11. The Role of Culture in the Emergence of Complex Societies. Dwight W. Read Department of Anthropology UCLA dread@anthro.ucla.edu. Introduction. Culture in explanatory arguments

amma
Download Presentation

Plenary Talk

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Plenary Talk International Conference on Complex Systems 2002 Nashua, New Hampshire June 5 - 11

  2. The Role of Culture in the Emergence of Complex Societies Dwight W. Read Department of Anthropology UCLA dread@anthro.ucla.edu

  3. Introduction • Culture in explanatory arguments • Societies from “simple” to “complex” • From group to band organization via kinship • Kinship as a cultural construct • Modeling of a kinship construct • Instantiation: Symbols to people • Implications for two views of human behavior

  4. In linking “empirically defined relationships with mathematically defined relationships…[and] the symbolic with the empirical domain…a number of deep issues…arise…. These issues relate, in particular, to the ability of human systems to change and modify themselves according to goals which change through time, on the one hand, and the common assumption of relative stability of the structure of …[theoretical] models used to express formal properties of systems, on the other hand…. A major challenge facing effective — mathematical — modeling of … human systems … is to develop models that can take into account this capacity for self-modification according to internally constructed and defined goals.” (Read 1990, p. 13, emphasis added) Inadequacy of Classical Mathematical Modeling:Problem of Self-Modification

  5. Explanatory ParadigmPhysical Sciences

  6. Explanatory ParadigmBiological Sciences

  7. Explanatory ParadigmCultural Framework

  8. Three Paradigms for Modeling Evolution of Complex Societies (1) Evolution of a Society as a Totality Band Level Societies  Tribal Level Societies  Chieftain Level Societies  State Level Societies White (1949), Steward (1955), Fried (1967), Service (1962)

  9. Three Paradigms for Modeling Evolution of Complex Societies (cont’d) (2)Evolution of the Internal Structure of a Society Viewed as a Hierarchical Control/Information Processing System "… the most striking differences between states and simpler societies lie in the realm of decision -making and its hierarchical organization …" (Flannery 1972, p. 412 )

  10. Three Paradigms for Modeling Evolution of Complex Societies (cont’d) (3) Role of Agent and Agency in Evolution of Societies “… the formal, functional, and dynamic properties of the state are outcomes of the often conflictive interaction of social actors with separate agendas, both within and outside the official structure of the decision-making institution” (Blanton 1998, p. 140) “The organizational forms of Mesopotamian complex societies emerged through the dynamic interaction of partly competing, partly cooperating groups or institutional spheres and different levels of social inclusiveness” (Stein 1994, p.12 )

  11. Sequence of Societies (1) Solitary society: I = <{single individual}> (2) Group consisting of several individuals: G = <{Ii: 1 < i < m}, SG> (3) Band society/community composed of several groups: B = <{Gi: 1 < i < n},SB> (4) Tribal society/simple chiefdoms composed of several B's: T = <{Bi: 1 < i < p}, ST> and (5) Complex chieftains composed of several T's: C = <{Ti: 1 < i < q},SC>, where SG, SB, ST, SC, stand for the internal organization of the units making up a society at a particular level in the sequence.

  12. Groups of Individuals

  13. Band society

  14. Tribal Society (groups)

  15. Tribal Society (lineages)

  16. Tribal Society (political office)

  17. Tribal Society (moieties)

  18. Tribal Society (ritual)

  19. Chiefdom (Simple)

  20. Chiefdom (Complex)

  21. State Structure(top down structure)

  22. Shift from Simple to Complex Society

  23. Simple Society

  24. Complex Society

  25. Shift from Simple to Complex Society

  26. Kinship Identification and Calculation Gao [a Nyae Nyae !Kung] had never been to Khadum [to the north of the Nyae Nyae region] before. The !Kung who lived there at once called him ju dole [dole: ‘bad’, ‘worthless’, ‘potentially harmful’]. He was in haste to say that he had heard that the father of one of the people at Khadum had the same name as his father and that another had a brother named Gao. `Oh,’ said the Khadum people in effect, `so you are Gao’s !gun!a . . .. (Marshall 1976:242) [!gun!a -- kin term for persons in a name giver-name receiver relationship]

  27. Gao’s Calculation (same name) Gao’s father A’s father Unidentified person B B’s brother’s name is Gao Unidentified person A Gao !gun!a kin relationship

  28. Complexity of Genealogy compared to Simplification Achieved through a Kinship Terminology Structure

  29. Culture as a Constructed Reality

  30. Culture as a Conceptual Structure

  31. Symbolic Structure(model)

  32. Symbolic Structure(graph)

  33. Comparison of Two Kinship Terminologies

  34. (same name) Gao’s father A’s father Unidentified person B B’s brother’s name is Gao Unidentified person A Gao !gun!a kin relationship Gao’s Calculation (model) C (Gao) !gun!a tsi (“brother”) B Ego (Gao) ?? = tun

  35. Calculation with Kin Terms

  36. Definition: Kin Term Product Let K and L be kin terms in a given kinship terminology, T. Let ego, alter1 and alter2 refer to three arbitrary persons each of whose cultural repertoire includes the kinship terminology, T. The kin term product of K and L, denoted K o L, is a kin term, M, if any, that ego may (properly) use to refer to alter2 when ego (properly) uses the kin term L to refer to alter1 and alter2 (properly) uses the kin term K to refer to alter2.

  37. Kin Term Map for the American Kinship Terminology

  38. Kin Term Map for the Shipibo Terminology Shipibo: Horticultural group in Peru

  39. Simplification of Kin Term MapRemoval of affines, structural equivalence

  40. Construct a Semigroup Model

  41. Isomorphism Between Reduced Kin Term Map and Generated Structure Isomorphism

  42. Isomorphism Between AKT and Generated Structure

  43. Predicted Kin Term Definitions STEP 1: Instantiation: I --> {ego} P --> {f, m} C --> {s, d} S --> {h, w} STEP 2: Construct set products corresponding to symbol products: e.g. CP = {f, m}{s,d} = {fs, fd, ms, md} = {b, z] RESULT: Predicted genealogical diagram Where: f = genealogical father m = genealogical mother s = genealogical son d = genealogical daughter h = husband w = wife

  44. Explanatory ParadigmCultural Framework

  45. Instantiation of Abstract Symbols

  46. Integration of Material and Ideational Levels

  47. Dual Mental Processing System Individual

  48. Contention Resolved? Sociologist James March (1999) ”There are two great contending visions of how human action is to be interpreted. The first vision sees action as driven by a logic of consequences in which alternatives are assessed in terms of two guesses a guess about the probable future consequences of action and a guess about the probable future feelings an actor will have about those consequences when they occur. The second vision sees action as driven by a logic of appropriateness in which actors seek to fulfill identities by matching actions to situations in ways that are appropriate for an identity that the actor accepts" (emphasis added). (Marschak Colloquium, UCLA)

More Related