Kinship, Culture, and evolutionary perspective--论文代写范文精选

在简单觅食中,人们互相帮助照顾孩子,收购很难获得的资源,分享食物,对抗其他团体。在复杂的现代社会中，实例更容易得到。亲族选择特征的过程是受欢迎的,因为他们的生存有利影响。下面的essay代写范文进行详述。

Abstract 
Work was conducted among traditional, subsistence whale hunters in Lamalera, Indonesia in order to test if kinship or lineage membership is more important for explaining the organization of cooperative hunting parties ranging in size from 8-14 men. Crew identifications were collected for all 853 hunts that occurred between May 3 and August 5, 1999. Lineage identity and genetic relatedness were determined for a sample of 189 hunters. Results of matrix regression show that kinship explains little of the hunters’ affiliations independent of lineage identity. Crews are much more related amongst themselves than expected by chance. This is due, however, to the correlation between lineage membership and kinship. Lineage members are much more likely to affiliate in crews, but beyond r = 0.5 kin are just as likely not to affiliate. The results are discussed vis-à-vis the evolution of cooperation and group identity.

Introduction 
People frequently form cooperative groups in order to realize the benefits of collective action. While humans are not the only species that forms social groups, we are unique in the degree to which we regularly rely on the help of conspecifics to satisfy basic needs such as subsistence, defense, and offspring care (Hill 2002). In simple foraging groups, people help one another care for children (Ivey 2000), acquire difficult to obtain resources (Alvard and Nolin 2002), share food (Kaplan and Hill 1985), and fight other groups (Chagnon and Bugos 1979). In complex contemporary society instances are even easier to come by. Examples include unions, political parties, nation states, firms, college fraternities, sports teams, and universities. Kin selection (Maynard Smith 1964) and inclusive fitness theory (Hamilton 1964a, 1964b) offers good evolutionary explanations for why cooperation among relatives should be common. Kin selection is the process by which traits are favored because of their beneficial effects on the survival of relatives (Grafen 1984). 

Because kin share genes due to common descent, behaviors that increase the reproductive success of relatives can also increase the future representation of ego’s genes. Thus, kin selection theory predicts that, all other things equal, individuals will be more likely to favor kin than non kin, and close kin than more distant kin. Hamilton’s well-known rule predicts altruism can evolve if the following equation obtains rB - C > 0, where r = the coefficient of relatedness between the actor and the recipient, B = the fitness benefit to the recipient, C = the fitness cost to the actor. The coefficient of relatedness is defined as the probability that two individuals share a copy of an allele through common descent (Wright 1922). For example, between sibs r = 0.5, between grandparent and grandchild r = 0.25, and between cousins r = 0.125. Thus, nepotism will evolve if the recipient of the favor is sufficiently related, the benefit is sufficiently great, or the cost sufficiently low. 

Kinship has been shown to be an important social organizing principle across a wide variety of taxa (Dugatkin 1997), and especially so in the social insects (Bourke 1997). For example, Sherman’s work on Belding ground squirrel alarms calls is well-known (Sherman 1977). Among humans, some of the best work shows that people are less likely to kill kin than non-kin (Daly and Wilson 1988; Johnson and Johnson 1991). Chagnon and Bugos’ (1979) analysis of a Yanomamo axe fight was among the earliest analysis to use kin selection theory to examine human social behavior. As predicted, combatants on each side were more related to one another than expected by chance. Within fields of study that take an evolutionary approach to human behavior, the role of kinship in explaining cooperative behavior within preindustrial societies is now taken for granted to some extent (Alexander 1987; Chagnon 1979, 1980; Hamilton 1975; see review by Voland 1998:363), although as I shall show, the extent of its importance is ambiguous (Brown 1991; Jones 2000; Richerson and Boyd 1998) Kinship has also long been argued by cultural anthropologists to be the primary organizing principle in tribal societies (Kuper 1982, 1996). In spite of what appears to a common ground, however, there has been little work over the last twenty years to integrate the two approaches. 

Indeed, kinship within the field has been “denaturalized” by many cultural anthropologists in the late twentieth century (Collier and Yanagisako 1987; Schneider 1984; for a review see Peletz 1995). A standard critique of kin selection theory applied to humans points to the incongruity between kin -- genetically defined, and kin-- culturally defined, to put it simply. This point was made the strongest by Sahlins (1976:58) when he stated “Kinship is a unique characteristic of human societies, distinguishable precisely by its freedom from natural relationships.” The hyperbole of this statement seems obvious. But while it is impossible to maintain the position that cultural kinship has nothing to do with genetic kinship, it is equally difficult to deny that people commonly organize themselves in ways that do not correspond to coefficients of relatedness. Sahlins (1976:26) wrote, “…local kinship networks…will comprise a determinate and biased proportion of any person’s genealogical universe.” 2 

This is most apparent in systems of unilineal descent. Genetic kinship does not distinguish between individuals equivalently related. People who follow norms of unilineal decent, however, define as kin only those persons who share common decent through either the male or female parent. In such systems, two people who are each equally related to Ego genetically may be defined differently according to kinship norms -- one as in-group member, the other as an outgroup member. In Sahlins’ words “…even so the son of a man’s brother may be one of the clan of the ancestor’s descendants while the son of his sister is an outsider and perhaps an enemy” (1976:12). In a patrilineal system the coefficient of relatedness for Ego and his mother’s brother’s son, and his father’s brother’s son (both called cousins in English) is 0.125. While the latter shares Ego’s lineage identity, the former does not. The difference is not simply a semantic one, as I will show below. The social relationships between ego and these individuals differ though the genetic relationship does not (see Figure 1). 

A kinship system based on kin selection, all other things being equal, predicts a bilateral descent or kindred system (implied by Murdock 1949:57). Kindreds are ego-based and consist of the group of all near relatives. In contrast to a unilineal system, in a kindred system no distinction is made between relatedness reckoned through one or other of the parents’ lineages. Cross-cultural work notes the relative rarity of such systems; only 36% of the 857 societies in Murdock’s ethnographic atlas have bilateral descent systems. Unilineal systems are much more common: 47% in Murdock’s sample practice patrilineal descent, 14% practice matrilineal descent, and 3% claim a double descent system (Murdock 1967). 

In what sorts of contexts would the advantages of unambiguous group identity obtained via unilineal descent play out? The answers tend to revolve around corporate political solidarity where groups reap benefits from acting collectively in defense of either property or persons (Sahlins 1961). A number of authors stress the advantages of unilineal descent in the context of conflict (Boehm 1992; Embers et al. 1974; Otterbein and Otterbein 1965; Sahlins 1961; Service 1962). Lower order segments that organize by unilineal descent principles can more easily combine into higher order segments when needed. Loyalties are not diffused like they are across kindreds. The advantage of such a system is exemplified by the Nuer and their territorial expansion at the expense of the Dinka (Evans-Pritchard 1940; Kelly 1985). 

Sahlins (1961) offers the Tiv expansion as another example. Other researchers argue that lineages are advantageous in a context where cooperatively held property is common (Goody 1962; Lowie 1920; Radcliffe-Brown 1935). Recent work on Chinese lineage systems, for example, show that lineages work to keep resources together and function to take advantage of economies of scale otherwise unattainable when inheritance disperses resources across bilateral kin (Cohen 1990; Freedman 1958). While they differ in their foci, both sets of theories argue that unilineal descent systems are solutions to collective action problems. Van den Berghe (1979) evokes these earlier anthropologists when he tries to understand lineage systems from the perspective of kin selection theory. Like Sahlins, van den Berghe notes that at face value it is incongruous with kin selection theory that half of one’s kin be excluded from those considered culturally as kin. Rather than reject kin selection theory, as did Sahlins (1976), van den Berghe offers a hypothesis that reconciles Sahlins critique with kin selection theory. Following Murdock (1949) and others, van den Berghe notes the problems organizing kinsmen into collective action with a kindred system. If cooperative groupings were based solely on kinship, conflicts of interest would erupt between kin related to a degree less than r= 0.5. 

Which group of kin does one ally with in a conflict? Who shares ownership of corporate property? Which set of cousins does one cooperative with? Van den Berghe argues that lineage systems solve this problem by normatively defining certain categories of relatives as kin and others as not kin. While disenfranchising half of one’s kindred may result in certain lost benefits, otherwise unattainable within-lineage collective action benefits presumably outweigh the cost. In addition to producing ambiguous groups, the ultrasocial character of human society leaves kin selection wanting as an explanation. While organization based on genetic kinship is predicted to easily produce small cooperative groups focused around the nuclear family, it is more difficult to see how larger groups of closely related individuals can form. This is because relatedness drops off rapidly as the genealogical distance from the nuclear family increases (Brown 1991; Jones 2000; Richerson and Boyd 1999). While kin selection can more easily explain the small-scale societies found among our non-human primate brethren, it is harder to example the complexity found in even simple foraging societies.（essay代写)

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。（essay代写)
更多essay代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有essay代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X（essay代写)