Plenary Talk International Conference on Complex Systems 2002 Nashua, New Hampshire June 5 - 11.
-
Upload
tanner-gaynes -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
2
Transcript of Plenary Talk International Conference on Complex Systems 2002 Nashua, New Hampshire June 5 - 11.
Plenary Talk
International Conference on Complex Systems 2002Nashua, New Hampshire
June 5 - 11
The Role of Culture in the Emergence of Complex
Societies
Dwight W. Read
Department of Anthropology
UCLA
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
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
Explanatory ParadigmPhysical Sciences
"Natural units"+Structuring Processes
HypothesizedProcess
Theory ModelT
ModelDForm andPatterned
Phenomena
PredictedPattern
Match =Explanation
IDEATIONAL LEVEL
PHENOMENOLOGICAL LEVEL
Explanatory ParadigmBiological Sciences
"Natural units"+Structuring Processes
HypothesizedProcess
Theory ModelT
ModelD
Form andPatterned
Phenomena
PredictedPattern
Match =Explanation
IDEATIONAL LEVEL
PHENOMENOLOGICAL LEVEL
Reproductionwith modification
Natural Selection FitnessMaximization
Fixation ofEvolutionaryStableStrategies
EvolutionaryStableStrategies
DifferentialReproductiveSuccess
Competition
TraitFrequency
FrequencyDistribtutionof Traits
Explanatory ParadigmCultural Framework
TheoryPredictedPattern ModelT
ModelD
Match =Explanation
IDEATIONAL LEVEL
"Natural units"Form andPatterned
Phenomena
Dravidian TerminologyIdentificationof Kin
SymbolicStructures
GenerativeStructure
AlgebraicModel
kin termmap
kinshipterminology
Cross Cousin Marriage
Identificationof Bride and
Groom
Group Structure:2 element group
<{I, X}, o>II =I, IX =XXI =X, XX=IInstantiation:
I =parallel MarriageX=cross Marriage
Sidedness Bipartitenetworkstructure
p-graphrepresentationof marriages
marriages
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)
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 )
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 )
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.
Groups of Individuals
Band society
Tribal Society (groups)
Tribal Society (lineages)
Tribal Society (political office)
Tribal Society (moieties)
Tribal Society (ritual)
Chiefdom (Simple)
Chiefdom (Complex)
State Structure(top down structure)
Shift from Simple to Complex Society
Simple Society
Complex Society
Shift from Simple to Complex Society
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]
Gao’s Calculation
Gao
Gao’s father
Unidentifiedperson A
A’s father
Unidentifiedperson B
B’s brother’sname is Gao
(same name)
!gun!a kin relationship
Complexity of Genealogy compared to Simplification Achieved through a Kinship
Terminology Structure
Genealogical Tracing
Term Number of paths
Sibling 2
1st Cousin 8
2nd Cousin 32
3rd Cousin 128
Culture as a Constructed Reality
Culture as a Conceptual Structure
Symbolic Structure(model)
Symbolic Structure(graph)
Comparison of Two Kinship Terminologies
baba
bake
yoshan shoko
papaisi shoko
yoshanpapaisi
huata (female speaker)
koka(female speaker)
nachi (male speaker)
epa (male speaker)
titapapa
huetsa (male speaker), pui (female speaker)pui (male speaker), huetsa (female speaker)
ea
chio (ms) ini (fs)pia (fs)nosha (ms)
Self
DaughterChild
NephewNiece
Grandchild
Grandson GrandnephewGrandnieceGranddaughter
Son
BrotherCousin
Sister
FatherMotherParent
Uncle
Aunt
GrandfatherGrandmother
GreatGrandfatherGreatGrandparent
Grandparent
GreatGrandmother
GreatAuntGreatUncle
American/ EnglishTerms
ShipiboTerms
ApproximateCorrepondance:
Gao’s Calculation (model)
Gao
Gao’s father
Unidentifiedperson A
A’s father
Unidentifiedperson B
B’s brother’sname is Gao
(same name)
!gun!a kin relationship
Ego (Gao)
C (Gao)
B
tsi (“brother”)!gun!a
?? = tun
Calculation with Kin Terms
Father
Mother
?
ego
alter1 alter2
Mother of Father =Grandmother
Kin Term Product
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.
Kin Term Map for the American Kinship Terminology
Kin Term Map for the Shipibo Terminology
baba
bake
bake (f)bake (m)
chio
yoshan shokopapaisi shoko
yoshanpapaisi
huatakokanachiepa tita
tita
papa
papa
huetsa-fpui-fhuetsa puiea
inipianosha
Arrow Kin Term
Shipibo: Horticultural group in Peru
Simplification of Kin Term MapRemoval of affines, structural equivalence
Construct a Semigroup Model
Symbol set: {P, C, I}
Binary operation: o
Identity Element: I
Structural Equation: P o C =I
Generate a Structure:
Construct all possible products of the symbols,reduce symbol products using the structuralequation and the fact that I is an identiy element
Isomorphism Between Reduced Kin Term Map and Generated Structure
Isomorphism
Isomorphism Between AKT and Generated Structure
Predicted Kin Term Definitions
STEP 1: Instantiation: I --> {ego}P --> {f, m}C --> {s, d}S --> {h, w}
Where: f = genealogical fatherm = genealogical mothers = genealogical sond = genealogical daughterh = husbandw = wife
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
Explanatory ParadigmCultural Framework
TheoryPredictedPattern ModelT
ModelD
Match =Explanation
IDEATIONAL LEVEL
"Natural units"Form andPatterned
Phenomena
Dravidian Terminology
Cross Cousin Marriage
Identificationof Bride and
Groom
Identificationof Kin
SymbolicStructures
Group Structure:2 element group
<{I, X}, o>II =I, IX =XXI =X, XX =IInstantiation:
I =parallel MarriageX =cross Marriage
Sidedness Bipartitenetworkstructure
GenerativeStructure
AlgebraicModel
p-graphrepresentationof marriages
marriages
kin termmap
kinshipterminology
Instantiation of Abstract Symbols
Integration of Material and Ideational Levels
Dual Mental Processing System
Individual
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)