What do you think?
Rate this book
Mixed Messages: Cultural and Genetic Inheritance in the Constitution of Human Society
As social and symbolic animals―animals with language and systems of signs―humans are informed by two different kinds of heritage, one biological, the other cultural. Scholars have tended to study our genetic and symbolic lineages separately, but in recent years some have begun to explore them together, offering a “dual inheritance theory.” In this book, Robert A. Paul offers an entirely new and original consideration of our dual inheritance to date, going deep inside an extensive ethnographic record to outline a fascinating relationship between our genetic codes and symbolic systems.
Examining a wide array of cultures, Paul reveals how the inherent tensions between these two modes of transmission generate many of the features of human society, such as marriage rules, initiation rituals, gender asymmetry, and sexual symbolism. Exploring differences in the requirements, range, and agendas of genetic and symbolic reproduction, he shows that a properly conceived dual inheritance model does a better job of accounting for the distinctive character of actual human societies than either evolutionary or socio-cultural construction theories can do alone. Ultimately this book offers a powerful call for a synthesis of the traditions inspired by Darwin, Durkheim, and Freud―one that is critically necessary if we are to advance our understanding of human social life.
Examining a wide array of cultures, Paul reveals how the inherent tensions between these two modes of transmission generate many of the features of human society, such as marriage rules, initiation rituals, gender asymmetry, and sexual symbolism. Exploring differences in the requirements, range, and agendas of genetic and symbolic reproduction, he shows that a properly conceived dual inheritance model does a better job of accounting for the distinctive character of actual human societies than either evolutionary or socio-cultural construction theories can do alone. Ultimately this book offers a powerful call for a synthesis of the traditions inspired by Darwin, Durkheim, and Freud―one that is critically necessary if we are to advance our understanding of human social life.
368 pages, Paperback
First published April 24, 2015
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
November 28, 2016
I found out about this book when reading an article of the SocialEvolutionForum. I've learned that psychoanalysis is mostly discredited, so upon learning that the author is a psychoanalyst I was slightly alarmed. That having said: I did not think that the analysis itself was wrong, it actually seemed convincing and well-argued. It did feel obvious that the analysis was done with a psychoanalytic perspective, but most likely having learned that the author is a psychoanalyst, I looked for such a thing. And only at some parts did it seem obvious.
The book convinced me that genetic reproduction is not a neccesity, and that cultural or symbolic reproduction exists, and can be quite succesful (which the book mentions several of). The book also convinced me that culture tries to channel or supress 'natural urges' (for lack of better word) - and the importance of it - such as - for example - selfishness, aggression and sexuality by imposing taboos and social norms. Other things mentioned in the book were less convincing, such as some of the interpretations of symbols. It felt that too much meaning was sought behind them, when it could be few or none. However, I am convinced that certain symbols, such as words, often have similar assocations across cultures: such as the nature/culture dichotomy. I am reminded by the book "The Greatest Estate on Earth" which talked of Aboriginals seeing nature that wasn't transformed by their fire use as disorderly and (too) wild. This idea of nature as disorder, and culture as order, seems to be common.
At times the book failed to keep my attention, but that happens often when I read. Overall it was interesting and a good book. I think it is a nice contribution to my personal library and am curious to see where this will lead us. And importantly: I have been reading a lot of the biological side of things, which includes both nature (genetics) and biological plasticy, so this book was great in offering the cultural perspective. While I was aware of the cultural flexibility of humans, this book did make me reconsider if my own perspective wasn't too biological. And I think it was.
The book convinced me that genetic reproduction is not a neccesity, and that cultural or symbolic reproduction exists, and can be quite succesful (which the book mentions several of). The book also convinced me that culture tries to channel or supress 'natural urges' (for lack of better word) - and the importance of it - such as - for example - selfishness, aggression and sexuality by imposing taboos and social norms. Other things mentioned in the book were less convincing, such as some of the interpretations of symbols. It felt that too much meaning was sought behind them, when it could be few or none. However, I am convinced that certain symbols, such as words, often have similar assocations across cultures: such as the nature/culture dichotomy. I am reminded by the book "The Greatest Estate on Earth" which talked of Aboriginals seeing nature that wasn't transformed by their fire use as disorderly and (too) wild. This idea of nature as disorder, and culture as order, seems to be common.
At times the book failed to keep my attention, but that happens often when I read. Overall it was interesting and a good book. I think it is a nice contribution to my personal library and am curious to see where this will lead us. And importantly: I have been reading a lot of the biological side of things, which includes both nature (genetics) and biological plasticy, so this book was great in offering the cultural perspective. While I was aware of the cultural flexibility of humans, this book did make me reconsider if my own perspective wasn't too biological. And I think it was.
March 20, 2017
Somewhat interesting, but very repetitive. Loaded with psychoanalytic bloviating. (Note to psychoanalysts: Start generating some testable hypotheses, and science will take you seriously. Otherwise, you're just Jehovah's Witnesses with a bigger vocabulary.)
The prose is mostly leaden. I kept picturing the author as Wile E. Coyote going over the empirical cliff, arms around the anvil that is his book.
I gave the book a couple of stars because the ethnographic information it contains is fascinating. Just pay no attention to that author over there trying to tell you what it all means (or "means").
If you're interested in the topic of gene-culture interaction, don't start with this book. Instead, read Richerson & Boyd's _Not by Genes Alone_.
The prose is mostly leaden. I kept picturing the author as Wile E. Coyote going over the empirical cliff, arms around the anvil that is his book.
I gave the book a couple of stars because the ethnographic information it contains is fascinating. Just pay no attention to that author over there trying to tell you what it all means (or "means").
If you're interested in the topic of gene-culture interaction, don't start with this book. Instead, read Richerson & Boyd's _Not by Genes Alone_.
Read
May 23, 2021My policy is to not rate books I haven't finished unless I've got most of the way through or have found some substantial part interesting and/or informative. I'm not rating this.
I read a lot of popular academic books on all sorts of topics. I don't want a superficial approach. I want the author to assume I'm intelligent, have some basic knowledge and to to inform me accordingly while not being either too light or too dense. I don't want to be talked down to but I do want to be engaged in the way a good teacher or lecturer will engage students, This book neither engaged me or greatly informed me. It is plodding, dense, and hard to follow. I gave up.
I read a lot of popular academic books on all sorts of topics. I don't want a superficial approach. I want the author to assume I'm intelligent, have some basic knowledge and to to inform me accordingly while not being either too light or too dense. I don't want to be talked down to but I do want to be engaged in the way a good teacher or lecturer will engage students, This book neither engaged me or greatly informed me. It is plodding, dense, and hard to follow. I gave up.
February 19, 2016
I tried many times to enjoy this book. Socio-anthropology is a bit out of my wheelhouse but I was reading quite a bit of Neo-Darwinism and felt intrigued by the "dual inheritance" message of this book.
There were points throughout where I was gripped, tales of the animal kingdom, of tribes alive and well with methods and mythologies we may scoff at but which hold their very societies together. But these pieces would seem to fall into a vortex of repetition, a return to the hypothesis seemingly to no end. It seemed almost like a clinical reduction of literature back to basic essay writing in college: "prove your theory."
At the end, I felt it was a moderately successful book. I accept portions of dual-inheritance as a theory but I struggle with the decision to keep it segregated within the realm of anthropology and evolution. Yes it is the classic case of "Nature v. Nurture," and yes it expanded on this considerably in anthropological channels. The issue I have is that human beings are so unbelievably multifaceted in our development that it seems that distilling Nurture down as was done in Mixed Messages allows Nature to become Nurture. What then fills Nurture's void? If, as a symbol-based society, we seem to hardcode our experiences and teachings to our genes over generations, is there really a Nurture left anymore? Is it to be believed that we are constantly creating symbols in a society that seems to have a ever dwindling attention span? Has our devolution begun? These are the philosophical implications of the dual-inheritance theory, and while there were tenets of dual-inheritance based philosophy, I never felt the connection.
I will say that the research and theory itself were well developed and evolved, and all that was missing was the tie to modern society, to the generational aspects happening now, the items taught and ingrained over just these last few decades. How will this affect us moving forward and how does the current zeitgeist change our society and our evolution for that matter?
There were points throughout where I was gripped, tales of the animal kingdom, of tribes alive and well with methods and mythologies we may scoff at but which hold their very societies together. But these pieces would seem to fall into a vortex of repetition, a return to the hypothesis seemingly to no end. It seemed almost like a clinical reduction of literature back to basic essay writing in college: "prove your theory."
At the end, I felt it was a moderately successful book. I accept portions of dual-inheritance as a theory but I struggle with the decision to keep it segregated within the realm of anthropology and evolution. Yes it is the classic case of "Nature v. Nurture," and yes it expanded on this considerably in anthropological channels. The issue I have is that human beings are so unbelievably multifaceted in our development that it seems that distilling Nurture down as was done in Mixed Messages allows Nature to become Nurture. What then fills Nurture's void? If, as a symbol-based society, we seem to hardcode our experiences and teachings to our genes over generations, is there really a Nurture left anymore? Is it to be believed that we are constantly creating symbols in a society that seems to have a ever dwindling attention span? Has our devolution begun? These are the philosophical implications of the dual-inheritance theory, and while there were tenets of dual-inheritance based philosophy, I never felt the connection.
I will say that the research and theory itself were well developed and evolved, and all that was missing was the tie to modern society, to the generational aspects happening now, the items taught and ingrained over just these last few decades. How will this affect us moving forward and how does the current zeitgeist change our society and our evolution for that matter?
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews