What do you think?
Rate this book
Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies
This path-breaking book addresses the nature of human sociality. By bringing together experimental and ethnographic data from fifteen different tribal societies, the contributors are able to explore the universality of human motives in economic decision-making, and the importance of social, institutional and cultural factors, in a manner that has been extremely rare in the social sciences. Its findings have far-reaching implications across the social sciences.
472 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2004
3 people are currently reading
364 people want to read
About the author
Joseph Henrich
13 books390 followersJoseph Henrich is an anthropologist. He is the Chair of the Department of Human Evolutionary Biology of Harvard University and a professor of the department.
Joseph Henrich's research focuses on evolutionary approaches to psychology, decision-making and culture, and includes topics related to cultural learning, cultural evolution, culture-gene coevolution, human sociality, prestige, leadership, large-scale cooperation, religion and the emergence of complex human institutions. Methodologically, he integrates ethnographic tools from anthropology with experimental techniques drawn from psychology and economics. His area interests include Amazonia, Chile and Fiji.
Joseph Henrich's research focuses on evolutionary approaches to psychology, decision-making and culture, and includes topics related to cultural learning, cultural evolution, culture-gene coevolution, human sociality, prestige, leadership, large-scale cooperation, religion and the emergence of complex human institutions. Methodologically, he integrates ethnographic tools from anthropology with experimental techniques drawn from psychology and economics. His area interests include Amazonia, Chile and Fiji.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 30, 2016
Mainstream economics has worked under the premise that individuals participating in economic activities behave in a purely selfish manner. University experiments (which use college students as convenient test subjects) have found that people don't act solely on selfish motives. The kinds of results from experients on college students in developed nations (regardless of which part of the globe) seem fairly consistent. However, anthropologiests have found much more variation in behavior between cultures of traditional hunter-gatherer, and farming and herding peoples. While none of these cultures have given results of purely selfish economic behavior, how far from the expectations of mainstream economics vary significantly.
This book attempts to analyze the data on how a number of cultures vary from the expectations of mainstream economics. They analyzed the behavior of indiviuals in each culture noting gender, education, age, affluence and other factors. While some cultures did show a difference in behavior depending on whether an individual was male or female (or on other traits), they found no pattern between cultures that men behaved one way and women behaved another (or patterns based on other traits.) The only definitive pattern was that one kind of behavior was more common in this culture and another behavior was more common in that culture.
My personal speculation is that for unknown historical reasons different cultures have attempted to reach similar (not necessarily identical) objectives, but have ended up settling on different social norms to achieve those goals. Each of these cutures had a goal which conflicted significantly enough with purely selfish economic behavior that they each found one way or another to reinforce the desirable behavior. This seems consistent with the evolution of the human conscience for purposes of limiting alpha male bullying and other socially detrimental activities.
The universality of people in all cultures having economic interactions based on more than just selfish interests, seems to indicate something in the human genetics (not just culture) plays a role. A study in Zimbabwe found that people living in re-settled communities (no blood relations between households) were not less inclined to reciprocity than those in communities with blood relations - indicating it's not purely helping one's bloodlines. A study in Mongolia found that people in the studied area did not tend to punish those who didn't meet social norms, but those people were very concerned about being viewed as breaking social norms. Punishment of breaking norms seems to be an important reinforcement of conscience, so this community raised questions. The anthopologist discussed possible explanations. I wondered whether this area's gene pool might have stronger genes for conscience. The community included members of two ethnic groups, so this is not as simple an explanation as it might be. However, since conscience seems to have roots in our genetics, it seems possible that in small-scale societies where there is a relatively closed gene pool such a mutation could appear and persist somewhere.
For those who want to delve deeper into the underlying experimental processes involved in the book, there is some discussion of what aspects of the experimental design may have left room for ambiguity, how such ambiguity might be eliminated in future experiments, what new questions have been raised by the answers found in the experiments, and how those new questions might be investigated.
The question remains what causes the difference in experimental results in large-scale societies in developed nations and results in small-scale societies. For those of us who wish to apply scientific understanding of conscience, cooperation and reciprocity to greater egalitarianism in developed nations, studies designed to deepen this understanding would be of great interest.
This book attempts to analyze the data on how a number of cultures vary from the expectations of mainstream economics. They analyzed the behavior of indiviuals in each culture noting gender, education, age, affluence and other factors. While some cultures did show a difference in behavior depending on whether an individual was male or female (or on other traits), they found no pattern between cultures that men behaved one way and women behaved another (or patterns based on other traits.) The only definitive pattern was that one kind of behavior was more common in this culture and another behavior was more common in that culture.
My personal speculation is that for unknown historical reasons different cultures have attempted to reach similar (not necessarily identical) objectives, but have ended up settling on different social norms to achieve those goals. Each of these cutures had a goal which conflicted significantly enough with purely selfish economic behavior that they each found one way or another to reinforce the desirable behavior. This seems consistent with the evolution of the human conscience for purposes of limiting alpha male bullying and other socially detrimental activities.
The universality of people in all cultures having economic interactions based on more than just selfish interests, seems to indicate something in the human genetics (not just culture) plays a role. A study in Zimbabwe found that people living in re-settled communities (no blood relations between households) were not less inclined to reciprocity than those in communities with blood relations - indicating it's not purely helping one's bloodlines. A study in Mongolia found that people in the studied area did not tend to punish those who didn't meet social norms, but those people were very concerned about being viewed as breaking social norms. Punishment of breaking norms seems to be an important reinforcement of conscience, so this community raised questions. The anthopologist discussed possible explanations. I wondered whether this area's gene pool might have stronger genes for conscience. The community included members of two ethnic groups, so this is not as simple an explanation as it might be. However, since conscience seems to have roots in our genetics, it seems possible that in small-scale societies where there is a relatively closed gene pool such a mutation could appear and persist somewhere.
For those who want to delve deeper into the underlying experimental processes involved in the book, there is some discussion of what aspects of the experimental design may have left room for ambiguity, how such ambiguity might be eliminated in future experiments, what new questions have been raised by the answers found in the experiments, and how those new questions might be investigated.
The question remains what causes the difference in experimental results in large-scale societies in developed nations and results in small-scale societies. For those of us who wish to apply scientific understanding of conscience, cooperation and reciprocity to greater egalitarianism in developed nations, studies designed to deepen this understanding would be of great interest.
February 12, 2015
Not much coherence across chapters. A more emphasized motivating hypothesis is required to unite the whole book nonetheless an excellent resource for quantitative examples of human sociality and cooperation across the globe.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews