Marriage Metamorphosis

In light of what is going on with Proposition 8 in California, a little perspective on the history of marriage is in order. The article I wrote below was originally published in the now defunct Albuquerque Tribune on April 8th, 2004.

As the service nears completion, the priest leads the couple, hand-in-hand, around the lectern. The three find themselves enveloped in the voices of the assembled, who fill the church nave with song.

Slowly, the two raise their heads. Their breath quickens as they anticipate the final pronouncement. After a nod from the priest, they gently kiss. The priest presents the couple to those assembled, reciting Psalm 133:1: "Behold how good and sweet it is for brothers to live as one."

And with that, the union of the two men is complete.

While the above narrative might be a dream of many same-sex couples in the United States, it is based on a type of same-sex union ceremony - one might say marriage ceremony - that was occasionally performed in Europe between at least the fifth century and through the middle ages, if not later.

This ceremony was part of an Orthodox Roman Catholic and Greek institution that combined the idea of a spiritual companionship with the desire of some church members to bond with people of the same sex. These "brother-making" rituals were recorded in perhaps hundreds of church liturgies. And within the church's stored collections of liturgies, they were typically placed immediately following those of different-sex ceremonies.

John Boswell, a medieval historian, has argued the similarities between these early same- and different-sex ceremonies imply both were seen as a form of marriage. But other scholars limit their view of these same-sex ceremonies to formal church recognitions of very deep bonds of platonic friendship.

However, the ceremonies were often performed between monks and missionaries, and the same-sex, tightly knit environments of schools, monasteries and nunneries helped foster a degree of intimacy. It is possible that some of these same-sex unions consisted of deep, monogamous, homosexual relationships.

So, it would appear that the intellectual tradition of marriage has not been as unchanging as many believe, including [former] President [George W.] Bush. In proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Bush said: "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization."

The institution of marriage has primarily been centered on the union of a man and woman for the obvious reason of propagation of the species. But it certainly hasn't been limited to this over the course of human history, including religious history, contrary to what he and others might say.

Socially acceptable "marriages" between same-sex couples have been a part of many cultures, including, but not limited to, ancient Rome, Hellenic Greece, the Yuan and Ming dynasties of China, several African cultures, and many native tribes within the New World.

The definition of marriage for different-sex couples has not remained constant throughout history. Among U.S. changes: abolishment of laws forbidding interracial marriage. Earlier Christian practice included a prohibition of second marriages and strong discouragement of marital sex beyond what was needed for procreation.

The point is the definition of marriage as an institution and tradition has varied over time and across space. We are born, then live and die; and our traditions, including marriage, change as the generations do.

Our Culture of Consumption

BlackintheCity.net Commentary (The Murphy Report has been changed to BlackintheCity.net):

-------------------------------------------

A small boy bounces around in his booth at some nameless fast food restaurant that could be anywhere in the US, for that matter anywhere throughout much of the world.

“When will it be ready?” he asks again for the fourth time in less than a minute.

His mother sighs, “Soon honey. Please have a little patience. Your father will bring the food over pretty quick.”

“I wonder what the toy will be?” the boy asks with great anticipation.

For the rest, go to my column.

Constitutional Amendments and the Right to Marry Under the Influence

Murphy Report Commentary:

--------------------------------------------------

President Bush and many socially conservative Republicans were at it again this last week, out on the front lines protecting the institution of marriage from renegade activist judges. But the proposed constitutional amendment to limit marriage in the US to a union between a man and a woman failed to receive even 50 percent of the cloture vote in the Senate today (Wednesday), effectively killing this particular attempt at banning gay marriage at the federal level. The lackluster support for the amendment lends credit to the charge by some that the real goal of the amendment (at least at this time) was to energize support in the Republican party’s conservative base.

For the rest, go to my column.

Toilets of Terror III

Murphy Report commentary:

------------------------------------------

As if waiting before the very gates of hell, the little preschooler stands rooted in front of the toilet stall in a nameless public restroom that could be anywhere in the states. His little heart beats fast as he hears his mother impatiently urge him on.

“Go on, honey. We need to get a move on. I’m going to stay out here and change your sister’s diaper.”

For the rest, go to my column

Why Pay for the Social Sciences?

Another of my commentaries from the Murphy Report.

--------------------------------------------------------

While only a minor blip on the radar screen of most Americans, there was a major shakeup of about 8.8 in the world of the social sciences last week. I’m referring to the amendment of the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act (S 2802) proposed by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-TX. The amendment’s original wording gave preference to NSF (National Science Foundation) funding for research involving “physical science, technology, engineering, or mathematics,” over that of the social sciences - sociology, anthropology, geography, economics, psychology, political science, education, and history [1]. Oddly, in terms of tax dollar funding, Senator Hutchison also included biology (a life science) and geology (a physical science) as part of this “second class” of scientific endeavors.

For the rest, go to my column.

The Threat of Christian Nationalism

Another of my columns from the Murphy Report.

--------------------------------------

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see His banners go!

So go the lyrics to the first verse of Sabine Baring-Gould’s 1865 hymn “Onward Christian Solders.” Growing up as part of the United Methodist Church in Middle America, I recall singing this fairly blatant militant hymn from time to time. Of course I was always told the hymn should be interpreted as a metaphor for the struggle against Satan, sin, and our own personal demons (whatever the long dead author’s original intent). Christianity, I remember being taught, is a religion that strives for peace, understanding, forgiveness, and acceptance – despite its long history of contrary examples.

For the rest, go to my column.

The Irony of Intelligent Design

I recently started writing a column for the Murphy Report. The following is the first paragraph from my first column.

The great irony of Intelligent Design is that its success and development as an intellectual tradition can be neatly framed within a Darwinian evolutionary perspective. After all, our intellectual traditions and all their associated technologies are extensions of our behaviors, and therefore are subject to the forces of evolution just as our genes are. Two examples from different periods of human history will help illustrate this.

Go to the Murphy Report to check out the rest.

Stephen Colbert at White House Correspondents Association Dinner

The following is an Act for Change update. Whether you take any action or not, definitely check out the video of Colbert's performance - it's a biting commentary on the Bush administration and the media's half hearted attempts to hold the administration accountable.

ACTFORCHANGE ACTIVISM UPDATE: May 5, 2006

** FEATURED ACTION **

Mainstream Media -- Why the Blackout on Stephen Colbert?

Last week at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner, comedian Stephen Colbert delivered a scathing satirical commentary on the Bush Administration -- right in front of President Bush himself. But unless you get your news from online sources such as the blogs, you probably didn't even hear about it.

If you haven't already watched his performance, watch it online now. Click here:

http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/emtd0NgDMY0TD50BFy10EM

A transcript can be found here:

http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/emtd0NgDMY0TD50BFy20EN

It's ironic that at the annual gathering of this nation's elite journalists, the only one with the courage to tell the honest truthwas a comedian. It sure speaks volumes to the media's failure to ask the Bush administration hard questions and hold it accountable. Tell the mainstream media to do their jobs and act as watchdogs, notlapdogs, of the Bush administration. Click here:

http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/emtd0NgDMY0TD50BFy30EO

Let's go ahead and ask America's major media outlets -- why the silence on Colbert? Were you uncomfortable with his courage in pointing out that you have not really been carrying out the independent watchdog role upon which our democracy depends? Tell the corporate media: honest and much-needed criticism of this administration shouldn't be left to the comedians. Click here:

http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/emtd0NgDMY0TD50BFy30EO

*** Then, please forward this email to all your friends, neighbors, favorite webmasters or bloggers!!!

THANK YOU for working to build a better world, Will EastonManager, ActForChange.com / Working Assets

P.S. -- Want to support 50 great progressive nonprofit groups fightingthe right-wing agenda? Contribute by clicking here:

http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/emtd0NgDMY0TD50BBhG0EN .

View the groups we're supporting in 2006 by clicking here:

http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/emtd0NgDMY0TD50jFt0E7

Junk Food Education

The April 7th Lawrence Journal-World story entitled “Bill aims to rid schools of junk food options” discusses the problems of junk food in our nation's schools and the recently introduced federal legislation intended to update the nutrition standards for all food sold/distributed in our public schools. However, the article ignored what I thought to be the fundamental reason why junk food has infiltrated our nation’s public schools over the last twenty years. As the general importance that US society places on public education as slowly waned, along with the associated funding, public schools have, in part, resorted to good ol’ fashioned capitalism to make up the difference.

Deals with junk food manufacturers to place their vending machines on school campuses have proven lucrative. But the consequences have proven unhealthy to our nation’s children, and over the long term the increase in obesity (and associated health problems) that this has helped create will further stress our nation’s increasingly dysfunctional health care system.

I agree with the general sentiment that problems often arise when implementing federal legislation and regulation at the local level, often due to inadequate accounting for local variability. But this doesn’t negate the fact that such federal actions are sometime needed to balance the interests of capitalism with the long-term health and welfare of the nation, albeit in a smart, efficient, and effective manner that is accountable for local needs.

What's Impeachable and Why

On the one hand we have a former president for whom impeachment proceedings were instigated as a result of his sexual indiscretion within the walls of the White House. On the other hand we have a sitting president for whom even censure seems highly unlikely, despite 1) apparently authorizing the disclosure of highly sensitive intelligence information to the media in order to discredit Joe Wilson's views that were contrary to the administration's justifications for the invasion of Iraq, 2) authorizing the wire tapping of private citizens, 3) leading an administration that bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina, and the list goes on and on.

As a private citizen this astounds me. But as an anthropologist I find it intriguing to explore how the nature of contemporary American society and culture allows for such a gross contradiction to occur. Certainly the elevation of a very narrow definition of social morality (i.e., social conservative elements based a great deal on evangelical Christian interpretations of western, Judeo/Christian philosophy and history) to the national level has played a part in this. But it's obviously involves more than this alone, and unfortunately, time does not allow me to expand upon it now. But for those who wish to comment, feel free.

Embracing Inequality to Achieve Equality of Opportunity

And again we have more research results demonstrating differing brain operations between men and women. UC Irvine researchers have reported findings that show the amygdala, a part of the brain "involved in processing emotionally influenced memories," behaves differently in men and women. And this specific finding may shed light on the understanding and treatment of various psychiatric disorders that appear to vary by sex/gender.

As an anthropologist, particularly one that makes heavy use of evolutionary theory, the fact that there are very real differences in the brains of males vs. females, and that these differences influence how each sex perceives and experiences the world around them, is to be expected. By far, the majority of human and pre-human history was spent in relatively small groups with many of the daily tasks for survival and propagation of the species subdivided along the line between the two sexes. Not the least of which would have been childbirth itself.

It would be inevitable that evolution over the long term would have modified the male and female brain differently to adapt to and perform these differing tasks more efficiently and effectively. So it would seem logical that in our modern world we should try to account for these differences in everything from medical treatments, to the design of space, to the structuring of learning environments and teaching methods.

Unfortunately politics and ideology often get in the way of this. The far left (including many feminists) often decries such research and its applications as perpetuating white male dominance or other power imbalances. The far right (including many religious conservatives) sometimes uses this type of research to justify its own various male/female dichotomies (including male "superiority").

And such findings also conflict with the popular "myth" in the US that all people are created equal. The fact is we're not created equal - we differ in various forms of physical prowess, various forms of intelligence, various likes/dislikes, the amount of resources available to the families we're born into, etc. The differences in the male/female brain are just another example of how we're not created equal.

Another US ideal - the goal of providing everyone with equal opportunities for success - is also typically not "true" in the sense that it's often not realized. However this is an ideal that we can strive for, but to do so we have to recognize the fact that we're not all created equal - including men and women. If we proceed on the erroneous assumption that we all have the same potential to succeed in any given situation, there will always be individuals playing with the deck stacked against them.

In the case of treating certain psychiatric disorders, by not recognizing the difference between men and women, certain treatments may be placing one gender or the other at a disadvantage in terms of being a success (or both genders may be placed at a disadvantage because the treatment targets neither brain type very well). A somewhat more controversial case is the structuring of education environments and teaching methods to maximize the differences in the mental wiring between males and females. But again, one or the other (or both) may be placed at a disadvantage by not recognizing the mental differences.

Science, in its purest form, doesn't care about politics or ideology. It cares about what the experimental evidence is saying. And its telling us that there are very real differences in how the brain works between males and females. We must acknowledge these differences, these inherent inequalities, if we ever truly want to achieve equality of opportunity.

US Pandemic Simulation

Livescience has a sobering summary of a US avian flu pandemic simulation that has the flu infecting the entire continental US after only 90 days (starting with 10 highly infectious influenza cases in Los Angeles). In addition to concluding that the production of a modestly effective vaccine ahead of time is preferable to waiting to see what the exact strain turns out to be, the researchers also stated that quarantines, school closures, and travel restrictions are the obvious means to slow the spread.

Of course, disrupting our social and economic networks via such government imposed means (as well as by the pandemic itself), will have drastic consequences from the local to global levels. As a species, we're regionally and globally integrated at a scale never seen before in human history. The disruption of our social and economic networks will probably have longer lasting social, cultural, and economic consequences than the pandemic itself, depending on the severity.

Toilets of Terror II

As a sequel to my earlier March 11 post, Toilets of Terror, I noticed that today's Sunday Comics (April 2) has Opus facing a seemingly possessed public toilet with an automatic flush valve. The majority of the frames depict Opus in various stages of dread and apprehension as he approaches (slowly and delicately so as not to disturb) the porcelain beast. In the next to the last frame, as he oh so gently sets his bottom down, the great beast roars to life, sending spray everywhere while shattering Opus' nerves. In the last frame our poor penguin hero is being wheeled out the door, strapped in a straight jacket screaming: "It's alive! .... Alive, I tell you!!"

I would say that depiction within the Sunday Comics is one sign that a social issue, problem, etc., has probably reached the stage where it is having a widespread affect. And in this case I would venture to say that automatic flush valves are a problem with all ages to varying degrees, though the impact is probably greater for pre-schoolers.

Filling a Need for Quick, Low-Cost Housing

"See a need. Fill a need."

This was a catch phrase from the hit animated movie Robots, referring to what inventors do at their most basic level. And this is precisely what Sanford Ponder, founder of Icosa Village Inc., has done with his invention of the Pod.

Ponder is quoted to have said "If we live in a world where people are forced to live in cardboard boxes, then someone should at least invent a better box." Ponder's "better box" solution, which he's termed the Pod, consists of interlocking triangular panels made from Coroplast (a hybrid polypropylene) that are strong, lightweight, water proof, recyclable, and usable in sub-zero environments.

The individual panels are easily transportable and can be assembled without specialized knowledge or tools. They've proven highly effective as temporary housing in recent disaster relief settings, such as the Kashmir region of Pakistan. And Ponder is also promoting their use in longer term, low-cost housing situations.

By coming up with simple technological solution, Ponder has made it possible to adapt his invention to a variety of social, cultural, environmental, and economic contexts. So I think I would revise the catch phrase of Robots to the following:

See a need. Fill a need, simply.

Bushisms

"I'm also not very analytical. You know, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things."

- George W. Bush aboard Air Force One; June 4, 2003

I received one of those George W. Bushisms daily calender for Christmas, and this was the quote that was listed for today. I tell you, most days I don't know whether to laugh or cry after reading the Bushism for the day.

I often wonder how the future will look back not just upon this administration, but how the social, cultural, economic, etc., etc. makeup of the US was such that this guy got elected twice. It may fuel many future dissertations.

The Gulf Region's Demographic Shuffle

With only two months to go before a hurricane season that the director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami has said will likely be stronger than average, the Bush administration is now saying there may not be enough money available to fully rebuild the Gulf region to meet new federal standards. This includes rebuilding/updating the New Orleans' levees, the cost of which is now estimated to be triple the value originally put forward.

This means that those areas unable to meet new federal regulations, and the requirements of the national flood insurance program, will have a tougher time attracting investors, developers, home buyers, federal/state/local infrastructure development/improvement/repair, etc. It's also true that many of these areas coincide with the areas populated by those with both lower incomes and less power and influence.

A potential travesty is in the making as disenfranchised groups may be pushed out of their homes and neighborhoods in New Orleans and across the gulf states. The demographics of the region may substantially change in the next few years - another symptom of the ever widening gap occurring between the "haves" and the continued increasing "have nots."

Fighting Childhood Obesity With ... Fidgeting

Mayo clinic researcher Dr James Levine has come up with what I think is a brilliantly clever strategy for fighting childhood obesity - designing an experimental classroom in Rochester, MN to take advantage of a child's seemingly "natural state" of fidgeting. Standard desks and chairs have been replaced by adjustable podiums that allow kids to stand, kneel, or balance on big excercise balls. And instead of constantly being told by teachers to sit still, the students are encouraged to move around if they feel the urge.

The data still aren't all in, but the observations of teachers and administrators are very encouraging thus far. And there appears to be an added benefit - these "free-to-fidget" students appear to actually be more focused than their desk-bound peers.

While this might be surprising to some, it makes sense if you think about it in terms of human history. The reason being allowed to fidget helps a child's focus is probably similar to why daylighting and natural views are prefered by (and, as studies suggest, increase the performance of) students (and people in general) within the built environment.

Prior to and after the advent of modern humans, between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago, Homo sapiens and their ancestors learned by "doing" out on a landscape illuminated primarily by the sun (and not rigidly confined to a sitting position). This did not begin to change until after the advent of urbanization between 8,000 and 12,000 years ago, and it has only been since the late 19th century that the use of "desk learning" and electric lighting have become the norm.

As such, general human physiologies and psychologies require a certain degree of movement for fitness, and are well adapted for operating within view of the natural environment and making use of daylighting (and therefore less well adapted to long periods of confinement, artificial lighting [particularly electric lighting], and being visually disconnected from natural views). And therefore what we typically have are classroom settings (as well as office settings) that work against the evolutonary history of our species. Food for thought for all those associated with education and the built environment.

The "Built Environment" By Any Other Name?

A while back I got into a discussion with a few archaeologists as to what other general terms could be used in place of the phrase "built environment." These particular archaeologists (myself included) subscribe to one of the discipline's multitude of theoretical perspectives known as Darwinian Archaeology - the application of Darwinian theory to the study of the archaeological record.

The core of the discussion focused around the already excepted definitions of terms such as "environment" and "phenotype" in evolutionary theory, and how the use of the term "built environment" could create some confusion in evolutionary studies of the built environment. Personally, I really like this term - its very comprehensive and descriptive - but I do understand other scholars' concerns. What follows below is a summary of my short-lived quest for an alternative term(s), a quest I did not complete. However, I would be interested if anyone wants to comment and make their own suggestions.

The traditional evolutionary definition of phenotype is the manifestation of the genotype as a result of the interaction of the genotype with its surrounding environment (Dawkins 1989:235; Sober 1984:106). The phenotype includes bodily features such as hair and skin, behavior, and the results of behavior that include the manipulation and/or fabrication of individual objects, groups of objects, social systems, etc. (Dunnell 1989; 1995; Dawkins 1982; Leonard and Jones 1987; Michod 1999:139; O’Brien and Holland 1995; O’Brien and Lyman 2000:7; Sober 1984:119).

Phenotypic objects such as artifacts or individual attributes may persist over time differently from the individuals or lineages of individuals that use them. Leonard and Jones (1987) point this out in their discussion of the reproductive success of individuals versus the replicative success of items. Replicative success is simply the “differential persistence through time [of certain items]” (Leonard and Jones 1987:214) and does not say anything about the reproductive success of the individuals using those items. This difference is due in part to the fact that the rate of propagation of traits within a population is often more a result of frequency dependence and environmental conditions than individual reproductive success (Madsen et al. 1999:258; Neff 2001:32).

Phenotypic objects such as artifacts or individual attributes can also be classified as both interactors (“epicenter of effects that a collection of replicators has upon the world” – Neff 2001:26) and replicators (some unit of which copies can be made – Neff 2001:26) (Mitchell 1987; Turner et al. 1997:43), due to an issue of scale. For example, attributes of discrete objects may act as replicators, while classes of discrete objects may be classified as interactors (O’Brien and Lyman 2000:383).

The traditional evolutionary definition of environment is where an organism or group of organisms make its/their living; the environment allows access to resources needed by the organism(s) for survival and reproduction (Gould and Gould 1989:36). According to many researchers, this includes both the physical and social environments (Hejl et al. 1997:400-401; Kummer et al. 1997; Lekson 1990:124). However, I believe that Durham (1991) [and others] would argue that there is no social “environment”, only social systems which are phenotypic traits formed by the interaction of genes and culture with the physical environment (culture acting analogous to genes in that both provide a guide for behavior within a given environment).

It seems that the term “environment” is often used loosely in evolutionary studies. This is primarily due to two aspects of evolution. The first is that the phenotype itself, its fitness, and heritability are determined by the interaction of genes/culture with the environment and other phenotypic traits or artifacts (Madsen et al. 1999:257; Michod 1999). The other phenotypic traits (which may include tangible elements such as modified natural objects and constructed artificial objects as well as less tangible entities such as social systems) are often lumped together with the “natural” surroundings under the general term “environment”. The second aspect is that the nature of the environment can change depending on the scale of what is being looked at. For example, Hejl et al. (1997:424-425) states the following: “The environment of genes consists of organisms, that of organisms consists of social systems or the physical surroundings, and that of social systems consists of the genetic constraints of past evolutionary history.”

From the above distinction (and blurring) of phenotype and environment, it would seem that the “built environment" (consisting of both the physical form and the behavior associated with its design, construction, occupancy, remodel, and demolition/abandonment), is a potential problematic term. The physical forms of the built environment technically meet the above definition of environment in that they “provide a place where humans make their living by providing access to at least some of the resources needed for survival and reproduction”. However, the built environment should probably be viewed more as phenotypic traits that are the result interactions of genes/culture with the environment as well as players in the development, fitness, and heritability of other phenotypic traits through their interaction with genes/culture and the environment. Therefore, the use of an alternative term in place of “built environment” is perhaps warranted.

Most studies of the built environment, which are also non-evolutionary in nature, tend to either focus on the physical forms themselves, the behavior of the occupants, or the behavior of the designers/builders. Sometimes the studies focus primarily on these phenotypic elements alone, and sometimes they examine these elements in relation to the surrounding environment, and sometimes they examine these elements in relation to other phenotypic systems, such as religion (though obviously not from a Darwinian evolutionary perspective). In some ways, many of these studies could be thought of as providing potential specific historical trajectories or solutions in larger evolutionary questions.

Given the above specific description of the built environment as phenotype and the above characterization of non-evolutionary studies of the built environment, I believe that most non-evolutionary scholars of the built environment could at least understand why the built environment should be considered as part of the phenotype from and evolutionary perspective. In fact, John Fitchen, an important scholar of the built environment, wrote the following in his 1986 text on pre-industrial building construction: “Building construction is analogous to animals ‘constructing’ their ‘dwellings’, and in fact has historically drawn upon these examples to help solve various problems” (pp. 22-26).

Given the above background/justification, most non-evolutionary scholars (and certainly Darwinian evolutionary scholars) of the built environment should at least be open to the use of an alternative term. The question then becomes what term to use. I personally do not think that architecture or architectural phenotype are acceptable alternatives to “built environment” (why is the subject of another post, but the jist is that I don't think its as encompassing a term). I have a few terms that I leaning towards: 1) Built Forms per Lawrence and Low 1990; 2) Designed Space; or 3) Constructed Space. This new term would refer to both the physical form and the behavior associated with its design, construction, occupancy, remodel, and demolition/abandonment.

In a future post I may cover more specifically various definitions of the built environment.

Resources

Dawkins, R.
1982 The Extended Phenotype: The Gene as the Unit of Selection. W. H. Freeman, Oxford.

1989 [1976] The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.

Dunnell, R. C.
1989 Aspects of the Application of Evolutionary Theory in Archaeology. In Archaeological Thought in America, edited by C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 35-49. Cambridge University Press, New York.

1995 What is it that Actually Evolves? In Evolutionary Archaeology: Methodological Issues, edited by P. Teltser, pp. 33-51. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Durham, W. H.
1991 Coevolution: Genes, Culture, and Human Diversity. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

Fitchen, J.
1986 Building Construction Before Mechanization. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Gould, J. L. and C. G. Gould, editors
1989 Life at the Edge: Readings from Scientific American Magazine. W. H. Freeman and Company. New York.

Hejl, P. M., R. Falk, H. Hendrichs, and E. Jablonka
1987 Complex Systems: Multilevel and Multiprocess Approaches. In Human By Nature: Between Biology and the Social Sciences, edited by P. Weingart, P. J. Richerson, S. D. Mitchell, and S. Maasen, pp. 387-426. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey and London.

Kummer, H., G. Gigerenzer, L. Daston, and J. B. Silk
1987 The Social Intelligence Hypothesis. In Human By Nature: Between Biology and the Social Sciences, edited by P. Weingart, P. J. Richerson, S. D. Mitchell, and S. Maasen, pp. 157-180. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey and London.

Lawrence, D. L., and S. M. Low
1990 The built environment and spatial form. Annual Review of Anthropology 19:453-505.

Lekson, S. H.
1990 Cross-Cultural Perspectives on the Community. In Vernacular Architecture: Paradigms of Environmental Response. Ethnoscapes Volume 4, edited by M. Turan, pp. 122-145. Avebury, Aldershot.

Leonard, R. D. and G. T. Jones
1987 Elements of an Inclusive Evolutionary Model for Archaeology. Journal of Anthropologicial Archaeology 54:491-503.

Madsen, M., C. Lipo, and M. Cannon
1999 Fitness and Reproductive Trade-Offs in Uncertain Environments: Explaining the Evolution of Cultural Elaboration. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18:252-281.

Michod, R. E.
1999 Darwinian Dynamics: Evolutionary Transitions in Fitness and Individuality. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Mitchell, S. D.
1987 Competing Units of Selection? A Case of Symbiosis. Philosophy of Science 54: 351-364.

Neff, H.
2001 Differential Persistence of What? The Scale of Selection Issue in Evolutionary Archaeology. In Style and Function: Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Archaeology, edited by T. D. Hurt and G. F. M. Rakita, pp. 25-40. Bergin and Garvey, Westport, Connecticut and London.

O’Brien, M. J., and T. D. Holland
1995 Behavioral Archaeology and the Extended Phenotype. In Reconstruction Theory: A Behavioral Approach to the Archaeological Record, edited by A. E. Nielson, J. M. Skibo, and W. H. Walker. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

O’Brien, M. J. and R. L. Lyman
2000 Applying Evolutionary Archaeology: A Systematic Approach. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Sober, E.
1984 The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

Turner, J. H., L. Cosmides, G. Hodgson, S. J. Shennan, M. Borgerhoff Mulder, B. Giesen, A. M. Maryanski, J. Tooby, and B. M. Velichkovsky
1997 Looking Back: Historical and Theoretical Context of Present Practice. In Human By Nature: Between Biology and the Social Sciences, edited by P. Weingart, P. J. Richerson, S. D. Mitchell, and S. Maasen, pp. 17-64. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey and London.

The President's Simplistic Use of Faith

Kevin Phillips is making the media rounds promoting his book "American Theocracy" and you can hear one of his stops with Terry Gross here. I have yet to read it, but I've put this expose of "radical religion, oil, and borrowed money" high on my must read list. And from what I've heard it's definitely not a quaint little bed time story to put you at ease for a blissful night of slumber.

With regards to the President's seemingly over-reliance on his own personal evangelical Christian faith, I wrote a commentary piece on this that appeared in the June 16, 2004 Albuquerque Tribune. A version of it appears below.

Not by Faith Alone

Benjamin Franklin once wrote, "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."[1] In other words, blind faith in some religious doctrine alone is woefully inadequate for framing one's worldview. Such a narrow perspective, formulated in the absence of other viewpoints, provides a limited understanding of the world. And yet this is precisely our president's perspective.

President Bush is an evangelical, born again Christian. By his own admission, he feels he was called by God to be president.[2] He sees the world in terms of black and white, good and evil. In his worldview, the United States is on a divine mission to shine the light of democracy on the rest of the world, freeing it from the grip of terrorism. And if you aren't with us, then you're with the terrorists.

This line of thinking solidified for our president after 9/11, and now forms the basis for much of our unilateralist foreign policy. Our president is confident in his stance, but this confidence stems from shutting out conflicting viewpoints and relying on his own interpretation of divine guidance.
When Bob Woodward asked the president if he sought his own father's advice on Iraq (a prudent course of action considering Bush senior's war with Iraq), the president responded, "You know, he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to."[3] He was so confident and comfortable that he didn't even ask most of his top advisors what they thought prior to making his final decision.[4]

Is it any wonder that much of the world - including atheists, agnostics, other Christian denominations, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Native American religious practitioners, etc. - is troubled by our president's actions? The leader of the most powerful nation on earth is formulating his policies within the narrow framework of one religious doctrine - evangelical Christianity. I think we should all be a bit nervous.

I'm not trying to degrade religion here. In fact, from an evolutionary standpoint, religion has been adaptable for individuals and groups in a variety of ways.

Across cultures and stretching back through time, religion has aided people in cooperating together as cohesive units through the establishment of moral codes, social structures, and strong social bonds.[5] It often helps establish a sense of family and community, as well as providing ties to the past and a sense of continuity. But problems arise when competition with others turns destructive.

The leader of the most powerful nation on earth has the obligation to acknowledge this and account for the cultural and religious mix that is our world. Otherwise we cannot avoid these destructive interactions.

Any leader that makes decisions based largely on an appeal to his/her own perception of God is bound to make a general mess of things by offending or oppressing those who have different (or no) conceptions of a higher being; hence the Founding Father's wise implementation of the separation of church and state.

For example, we're now all familiar with the president's use of the term "crusade" in describing our war on terrorism and how it made the Muslim world nervous and distrustful of our actions. This was a first rate blunder that could easily have been avoided.

Equally bad was the following. Recounting a conversation with President Bush, former Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas quoted the president in a June 24, 2003 article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz as saying, "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."[6]

The world is not black and white, or at least the world's definitions of black and white are not the same. At a global scale then this dichotomy blends to many shades of gray with distinctly dark and light ends. A president who decides to send troops to war in a relative vacuum, based on an appeal to one religion's narrow interpretation of a higher father, is able to make that decision far too easy for my taste.

I'm not calling for the president to abandon his faith. Nor do I think that one can divorce himself/herself from his/her own spiritual beliefs when looking at the rest of the world. But instead of closing both "eyes of reason" to see by faith, perhaps the president would be wise to keep one eye open and examine the multiple perspectives of any issue before making a decision.

References

[1] Benjamin Franklin, "Poor Richard's Almanack," 1758; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: The Citadel Press, 1983, p. 259.

[2] PBS Frontline: The Jesus Factor. Written, Produced, and Directed by Raney Aronson. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus.

[3] Fineman, H. and T. Lipper. 2004. The Gospel According to George. Newsweek, April 26, 2004, pp. 18-21.

[4] Thomas, E. 2004. "I Haven't Suffered Doubt." Newsweek, April 26, 2004, pp. 22-25.

[5] Wilson, D. S. 2002 Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

[6] Regular, A. 2003. `Road map is a life saver for us,' PM Abbas tells Hamas. Haaretz, June 24, 2003. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788.

Using "The Force" to Investigate Structural Forces

As an anthropologist, engineer, and all around geek, it doesn't get a lot better than this:

Yoda Helps Unlock Cathedral Mysteries

Here we have the use of computer animation and structural analysis to 1) de-mystify certain design/construction secrets of 12th/13th century European Cathedrals, 2) shed additional light on the social systems surrounding cathedral construction, 3) provide an investigative tool for contemporary structures, and 4) a means to develop more innovative and efficient designs for the future. Very cool indeed - check it out.