Culture: An Evolutionary Tale

          While the development of culture was essential to forming familial-like bonds that lead to the creation of state-level societies, adaptability of the ruling body was the single biggest determinant factor in the continuation of any ancient empire.

          Adaptability of societal structures has driven the progress of cultural evolution. From the harsh Paleolithic planes of Africa to the height of Roman civilization, the ability of a culture to adapt to both external and internal changes played a major role in its survivability. Unlike other social species, the human ruling class directs societies, at least in part. Out of self-interest and special levels of social intelligence found only in great apes, the leading individuals have guided the great cultures into cataclysmic battles for not only their own survival, but also the very culture they shape. Through the horrors of war, human societies found either survival in glorious victory, or they disappeared into the pages of antiquity.

          The duality of culture and warfare seem at odds, although they often walk the same path. Cultural views, like those of some religions, sometimes condemn violence and the dogs of war starve themselves without cultural backing and a leash. Still, the greatest pinnacles of human progress have come at the end of both sword and pen. However, the greatest falls came from either the tip of a hired blade or a sip of venomous wine.

          Before the great ancient states fell, they first caused numerous other, lesser states to fall. The heads of those states failed to see the approaching storm and devise a stratagem to save their own necks. So, it may be tempting to conclude that adaptability in warfare is the paramount factor in the survival of a society, but without careful examination, that conclusion would be premature.

Truth Until Relativity: Is Cultural Relativism Applicable Today?

Note to the reader: this paper was written in 2009 and is not a very philosophic review of Cultural Relativity. Nonetheless, I think it is interesting enough to revisit.

Philosopher: When is truth false?
Anthropologist: When the belief of truth is relative.

          The 19th century anthropological theory of Cultural Relativity has swayed a great deal of thought and research, despite its sweeping philosophical implications. The idea that truth is relative flies in the face of philosophical reason, but it still may provide a neutral viewpoint for anthropologists studying cultures that do not share common morals. As humanity enters the 21st century, the great debate between the two disciplines continues, and even after 200 years of deliberation, Cultural Relativism may have a valid place in academia today if restated in such a way to resolve its philosophical issues.

          In an article for The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Chris Swoyer states that Relativism is a group of theories that include a base notion that many aspects of truth-bearing statements are dependent concepts “relative to language, culture, or biological makeup” (Swoyer). Swoyer goes on to say culture may significantly alter the way a person perceives and interprets information.