Plenary Talk
International Conference on Complex Systems 2002
Nashua, 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
Inadequacy of Classical Mathematical Modeling:
Problem of Self-Modification
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)
Explanatory Paradigm
Physical Sciences
IDEATIONAL LEVEL
Hypothesized
Process
Theory
Predicted
Pattern
Model T
Match =
Explanation
"Natural units" + Structuring Processes
Form and
Patterned
Phenom ena
PHENOMENOLOGICAL LEVEL
Model D
Explanatory Paradigm
Biological Sciences
IDEATIONAL LEVEL
Natural Selection
Hypothesized
Process
"Natural units" + Structuring Processes
Reproduction
with m odification
Differential
Reproductive
Success
Fitness
Maximization
Theory
Evolutionary
Stable
Strategies
Predicted
Pattern
Form and
Patterned
Phenom ena
Trait
Frequency
Competition
PHENOMENOLOGICAL LEVEL
Fixation of
Evolutionary
Stable
Strategies
Model T
Match =
Explanation
Model D
Frequency
Distribtution
of Traits
Explanatory Paradigm
Cultural Framework
IDEATIONAL LEVEL
Identification
of Kin
Identification
of Bride and
Groom
Dravidian Terminology
Cross Cousin Marriage
Symbolic
Structures
Group Structure:
2 element group
<{I, X}, o>
II = I, IX = X
XI = X, XX = I
Instantiation:
I = parallel Marriage
X = cross Marriage
Theory
Generative
Structure
Sidedness
Predicted
Pattern
Algebraic
Model
Bipartite
network
structure
Model T
Match =
Explanation
"Natural units"
Form and
Patterned
Phenom ena
marriages
kinship
terminology
Model D
p-graph
representation
of marriages
kin term
map
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
(same name)
Gao’s father
A’s father
Unidentified
person B
B’s brother’s
name is Gao Gao
!gun!a
kin relationship
Unidentified
person A
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
Am erican/ English
Ter m s
Shipibo
Ter m s
GreatGrandm other
GreatGrandfather
GreatGrandparent
yoshan shoko
papaisi shoko
Grandm other GreatAunt
GreatUncle
Grandfather
Grandparent
yoshan
papaisi
nachi (m ale speaker)
huata (fem ale speaker)
epa (m ale speaker)
koka(fem ale speaker)
Aunt
Uncle
Parent
Mother
Father
tita
papa
Self
ea
Brother
Cousin
Sister
huetsa (m ale speaker), pui (fem ale speaker)
pui (m ale speaker), huetsa (fem ale speaker)
Son
Daughter
Child
bake
Nephew
Niece
Grandson
Granddaughter
Grandchild
chio (m s) nosha (m s) pia (fs) ini (fs)
Grandnephew
Grandniece
baba
Approxim ate
Correpondance:
Gao’s Calculation (model)
(same name)
Gao’s father
A’s father
B’s brother’s
name is Gao
Unidentified
person B
Gao
!gun!a
kin relationship
C (Gao)
!gun!a
tsi (“brother”)
Ego
(Gao) ?? = tun
B
Unidentified
person A
Calculation with Kin Terms
Kin Ter m Pr odu ct
Mother
alter1
Father
alter2
?
ego
Mother of Father = Grandm other
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
epa
papaisi shoko
yoshan shoko
papaisi
yoshan
nachi
papa
huetsa
pui-f
ea
nosha
chio
bake
tita
koka
pui
huetsa-f
pia
huata
ini
Arrow
baba
Shipibo: Horticultural group in Peru
Kin Ter m
papa
tita
bake (f)
bake (m)
Simplification of Kin Term Map
Removal of affines, structural equivalence
Construct a Semigroup Model
Sym bol set: {P, C, I}
Binar y operation: o
Identity Elem ent: I
Structural Equation: P o C = I
Generate a Structure:
Construct all possible products of the sym bols,
reduce sym bol products using the structural
equation and the fact that I is an identiy elem ent
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 father
m = genealogical mother
s = genealogical son
d = genealogical daughter
h = husband
w = 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 Paradigm
Cultural Framework
IDEATIONAL LEVEL
Identification
of Kin
Identification
of Bride and
Groom
Dravidian Terminology
Cross Cousin Marriage
Symbolic
Structures
Group Structure:
2 element group
<{I, X}, o>
II = I, IX = X
XI = X, XX = I
Instantiation:
I = parallel Marriage
X = cross Marriage
Theory
Generative
Structure
Sidedness
Predicted
Pattern
Algebraic
Model
Bipartite
network
structure
Model T
Match =
Explanation
"Natural units"
Form and
Patterned
Phenom ena
Model D
kinship
terminology
kin term
map
marriages
p-graph
representation
of marriages
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)