Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T01:55:44.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shamanism and the social nature of cumulative culture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2018

Mark Nielsen ,
Ronald Fischer  and
Yoshihisa Kashima
Mark Nielsen
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia. [email protected]://www.psy.uq.edu.au/people/personal.html?id=636
Ronald Fischer
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, 6012 Wellington, New Zealand. [email protected]://www.victoria.ac.nz/psyc/about/staff/ronald-fischer
Yoshihisa Kashima
Affiliation:
Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia. [email protected]://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/display/person15492
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Our species-unique capacity for cumulative culture relies on a complex interplay between social and cognitive motivations. Attempting to understand much of human behaviour will be incomplete if one of these motivations is the focus at the expense of the other. Anchored in gene-culture co-evolution theory, we stake a claim for the importance of social drivers in determining why shamans exist.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e81
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bulbulia, J. & Sosis, R. (2011) Signalling theory and the evolution of religious cooperation. Religion, Brain & Behavior 41:363–88. doi:10.1080/0048721x.2011.604508.Google Scholar
Chan, M. (2009) Ritual is theatre, theatre is ritual. Wee Kim Wee Centre and SNP.Google Scholar
Clark, A. E. & Kashima, Y. (2007) Stereotypes help people connect with others in the community: A situated functional analysis of the stereotype consistency bias in communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93(6):1028–39. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, E. (2001) The Chinese vegetarian festival in Phuket: Religion, ethnicity, and tourism on a southern Thai island. White Lotus Press.Google Scholar
Dean, L. G., Vale, G. L., Laland, K. N., Flynn, E. & Kendal, R. L. (2013) Human cumulative culture: A comparative perspective. Biological Reviews 89:284–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer, R. & Xygalatas, D. (2014) Extreme rituals as social technologies. Journal of Cognition and Culture 14:345–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J. (2015) The secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution, domesticating our species, and making us smarter. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinman, A. & Sung, L. H. (1979) Why do indigenous practitioners successfully heal? Social Science and Medicine, Part B: Medical Anthropology 13(1):7–26.Google ScholarPubMed
Legare, C. H. & Nielsen, M. (2015) Imitation and innovation: The dual engines of cultural learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19:688–99. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.08.005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pagel, M. (2012) Wired for culture: Origins of the human social mind. W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Power, E. A. (2017) Social support networks and religiosity in rural south India. Nature Human Behaviour 1:0057. doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & Hirschfeld, L. A. (2004). The cognitive foundations of cultural stability and diversity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(1):40–46. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.11.002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xygalatas, D., Mitkidis, P., Fischer, R., Reddish, P., Skewes, J., Geertz, A. W., Roepstorff, A. & Bulbulia, J. (2013) Extreme rituals promote prosociality. Psychological Science 24:1602–05.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed