Alejandro Gordillo-García

Cultural evolution is normally framed in informational terms. However, it is not clear whether this is an adequate way to model cultural evolutionary phenomena and what, precisely, “information” is supposed to mean in this context. Would cultural evolutionary theory benefit from a well-developed theory of cultural information? The prevailing sentiment is that, in contradistinction to biology, informational language should be used nontechnically in this context for descriptive, but not explanatory, purposes. Against this view, this article makes the case for the need to take a proper biology-based “informational turn” in the cultural evolutionary sciences. I argue that the current vague use of informational language misses out on the potential benefits for advancing understanding of phenomena that information-theoretic reasoning has provided in other sciences, especially genetics. In particular, by emphasizing the informational aspects of cultural evolutionary processes, this approach can clarify some conceptual and methodological problems that have plagued cultural evolutionary theory since its inception, including (1) how to determine the channel conditions of cultural information flow, (2) the nature and scope of cultural information, and (3) how to quantify trends of cultural cumulation. More generally, theories of cultural evolution will be incomplete until the mechanisms underlying cultural processes are better understood and integrated into the explanations. This article explores the adequacy of an information-theoretic framework to accomplish these purposes.

In the Origin of Species (1859), Darwin argued that his revolutionary theory of evolution by natural selection represented a significant breakthrough in the understanding of instinctive behaviour. However, many aspects in the development of his thinking on behavioural phenomena indicate that the explanation of this particular organic feature was by no means an easy one, but that it posed an authentic challenge – something that Darwin himself always recognized. This paper explores Darwin’s treatment of instincts within his theory of natural selection. Particular attention is given to elucidate how he tackled the difficulties of explaining instincts as evolving mental features. He had to explain and demonstrate its inheritance, variation, and gradual accumulation within populations. The historical and philosophical aspects of his theory are highlighted, as well as his study of the case in which the explanation of instincts represented a ‘special difficulty’; that is, the sterile castes of social insects.

In recent years, there has been a shift in how we study cultural evolution, with scientists taking a more biology-based approach, which is in direct opposition with the work done in the social sciences. This approach is based on the view that culture, including technology, language, beliefs, customs, values, traditions, language, and so on, changes through time analogously to the way that organisms evolve genetically, and that both evolutionary processes interact causally. This scientific program is known as Cultural Evolutionary Theory (CET) and it has different sub-fields like dual-inheritance theory and memetics. This dissertation delves into the main philosophical challenges of CET. In particular, it focuses on four, normally overlooked, aspects: (1) Cultural information. Even though informational language is widely used in this field, it is rarely defined and operationalized. However, it is important to get a better understanding of what is meant by culture and cultural information because it affects research. In working towards a better understanding of this concept, this dissertation builds on the parallels between genetic and cultural evolutionary systems. (2) Cultural complexity. Human culture is undoubtedly highly complex, and cultural evolutionists use various ways to measure cultural complexity. However, these methods often produce different results, which is a problem in scientific practice. This dissertation suggests that the reason of this divergence might be due to the different definitions of cultural complexity assumed. Therefore, it is important to develop a coherent conceptual framework, particularly one based on causality and information, to better understand cultural complexity. (3) Cultural maladaptation. Much of CET has focused on cultural traits that seem adaptive, such as medicines, technology, cooking, and so on, but this might lead to a bias. The focus on adaptation can make us overlook the study of cultural maladaptation, which are traits that reduce fitness, like harmful traditions such as celibacy or unsustainable practices such as overexploitation of the environment. This dissertation identifies four different concepts of cultural maladaptation and suggests ways to better identify and explain the origin, spread, and evolution of cultural maladaptive traits. (4) Evolutionary progress. While this dissertation focuses on theoretical aspects, CET has practical applications. It can help us identify and address harmful cultural traits and support the spread of beneficial ones. By understanding how culture evolves, we can make positive changes in society, like countering harmful beliefs and promoting practices that improve our well-being. This dissertation argues that having an operational definition of cultural evolutionary progress that is compatible with Darwinism can be a step forward towards the application of CET.