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

dread@anthro.ucla.edu

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)