Commentary: An Evolutionary Biocultural Approach to the Organization of Intracultural Diversity

The commentary introduces an evolutionary biocultural approach for understanding the organization of intracultural diversity in child development and uses the approach to critique the articles by Thomas S. Weisner and Harold L. Odden. [child development, evolutionary theory, cultural transmission] Weisner and Odden provide ethnographic descriptions and explanations for the organization of intracultural diversity in child development in the United States and Samoa. Weisner describes how two different U.S. middle-class parental cultural schemas (conventional vs. counterculture) might or might not lead to differences in child outcomes. Countercultural parents valued egalitarian relationships (male–female, parent–child), minimal parent influence on their children’s development, and ‘‘pronatural’’ views of childcare, nutrition, and the environment. The more conventional parents ‘‘more explicitly intertwined autonomy and dependence, and conventional values orientations’’ (this volume). The two value orientations were transmitted to their children respectively, but behavioral observations indicated that some parent–child interactions were similar in both counterculture and conventional families, such as the overall frequency of verbal exchanges and negations between parent and child. The two value orientations led to dramatic differences in how often parents coslept with their infants and young children; counterculture parents cosleeping much more frequently. However, longitudinal research on the children in both groups revealed that by adolescence the counterculture and conventional parents’ desired outcomes of cosleeping, such as the counterculture parents’ desire for self-acceptance and positive relations with the family, were not realized. The two adolescent groups did not differ in measures of psychological and behavioral well-being later in life. Odden provides rich ethnographic descriptions of how a Samoan child’s temperament interacts with parental ethnotheories and cultural values at different stages of the child’s life. Interpersonally aggressive infants and young children were valued, viewed as entertaining, and elicited considerable positive, often playful, attention from caregivers. But as these children got older, their assertiveness with adults was viewed as disrespectful and irritating, sometimes resulting in a severe beating. Behaviorally restrained infants and young children 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 AN EVOLUTIONARY BIOCULTURAL APPROACH 197 ETHOS, Vol. 37, Issue 2, pp. 197–204, ISSN 0091-2131 online ISSN 1548-1352. & 2009 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1352.2009.01038.x. E T H O 1 0 3 8 B Dispatch: 21.3.09 Journal: ETHO CE: Latha Journal Name Manuscript No. Author Received: No. of pages: 8 Op: Basha ETHO 1038 (B W U S E T H O 1 03 8. PD F 21 -M ar -0 9 22 :9 8 33 78 B yt es 8 P A G E S n op er at or = hv .a na nt ha ) sought and received more physical contact and affection than aggressive children, were easier to discipline, and had an easier time adhering to the cultural value of respect and deference toward adults. Both authors rely heavily on cultural ecological theories, such as Super and Harkness’s (1981) developmental niche, to explain intracultural diversity. Weisner states ‘‘cultural learning environments are arguably the most powerful influence on children’s development and parenting’’ (this issue). Different parental ideologies led to intracultural variation in some, although not all, beliefs and values. Odden is on the same page when he concludes that ‘‘different manifestations of the developmental niche keyed to culturally salient individual differences is one important way in which diversity is socially and culturally organized’’ (this issue). The developmental niche approach is emphasized in these two articles and it is probably the dominant paradigm in cross-cultural human development today (LeVine and New 2008; Super and Harkness 1997). I find it a useful conceptual tool in that it identifies three aspects important to any study of the impact of culture on child development: the physical and social settings, cultural practices, and parental ideology. But the approach has limitations: (1) it does not make specific predictions regarding the organization of intracultural variability, (2) it is adult-focused, emphasizing how parental ideology shapes socialization processes with little attention to the child’s views–interests–culture, and (3) biology or biology–culture interactions are not an integral part of this approach. As a result, I have focused my commentary on a key question raised by Weisner: What produces and perpetuates diversity, and how can we better integrate the fact of diversity into culture theory and research? I provide a brief introduction to an evolutionary biocultural approach, outline what this approach has to offer in terms of understanding the organization of intracultural diversity, and indicate how this perspective is useful for reinterpreting some of the results from Weisner and Odden. The biocultural approach is grounded in recent developments in evolutionary theory. I find the new concepts in evolutionary theory useful for two reasons. First, the individual, rather than the group, is the unit of selection in neoevolutionary thought (Betzig et al. 1988; Hamilton 1964). Individuals are active agents in their cultural and natural environments. Cultural beliefs and practices exist, but they can be manipulated, added to, or rejected by individuals given their particular political, economic, or natural environment. This view is consistent with Wallace’s statement noted in Weisner’s article: ‘‘And, most importantly, the human organism is creative: it selects, rejects, seeks information, thinks, makes decisions, and ultimately modifies the systems of which it is a part’’ (1970:22). From an evolutionary point of view, humans are ‘‘creative,’’ in part, because they are interested in enhancing their reproductive fitness in diverse demographic, institutional, ecological environments. Odden’s conceptualization of children and his data analyses are in several ways consistent with this emphasis on individuals in an evolutionary approach. He argues that ‘‘individual 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42