You are on page 1of 1

energy that the brain consumes. unfolding of those wider fields of relations in left to the editor to select.

One is left wondering whether Dr Peace has which they develop. There is no link between Hart’s editorial was followed by Thomas
a particular agenda. Is the fact that he associ- changing gene frequencies and the forms and Love, both of them demonstrate to me an ori-
ates the MLA campaign with the emotive behaviours of organisms that is independent entation which could be described as political,
phrase ‘blood and brutality’, an indication that of the dynamics of development. As I have which I think could be dangerous for an RAI
he would like to return to the pure bucolic life explained elsewhere (Ingold 2004), to grasp publication. There should, in my view, be no
on some fantasy savannah? Perhaps he hankers these dynamics we need a different way of orientation or political angle in any RAI publi-
after a time when he could have sat around thinking, ‘relational’ rather than ‘populational’. cation as the RAI is, and always has been his-
with a circle of gentle uncritical cave-people Our conception of evolution, accordingly, torically, a politically neutral body. Whilst the
sharing their nuts and chewing their leaves? l should be more topological than statistical. enforcement of this should be at the Editor’s
Robert M.L. Winston And it should be as applicable to relations discretion, I would expect the principle to be
Imperial College London among non-human organisms as to relations part of the RAI Council’s direction to editors
r.winston@imperial.ac.uk among human beings. on appointment.
Above all, we cannot rest content with I would have thought that in an era when
Aiello, L.C. and Wheeler, P. 1995. The Expensive Tissue the facile appeal to a biologically evolved scholarship and universities are increasingly
Hypothesis: The brain and the digestive system in human
evolution. Current Anthropology 36:199-221.
‘capacity for culture’. Human beings can do all dependent on government support, it would
McMichael et al. 2007. Food, livestock production, kinds of things, including things that probably be a real disaster if one party or another felt
energy, climate change, and health. The Lancet. no other animal can, but every single one of the academic body of a subject was in gen-
370(9594):1253-63.
these capacities has emerged within a process eral opposed to its policies, as support could
Tiger, L. 1969. Men in groups. New York: Random House.
Tiger, L. and Fox, R. 1971. The imperial animal. London: of development in a specific environment. be diminished, or departments felt to be less
Secker and Warburg. They are thus properties of developmental worthwhile closed down.
Winston, Robert M.L. Human instinct. Bantam Press. systems, as is indeed the mind itself which – as I hope this never happens here, but I do not
London, 2002.
Gregory Bateson (1973), and more recently feel totally confident that any of the seven
Andy Clark (1997), have recognized – is not or eight political parties represented in our
RELATIONAL THINKING – coterminous with the brain but extends into Parliament will ignore this type of thing. In
the environment along the processing loops countries with proportional representation, I
CAPACITY FOR CULTURE entailed in perception and action. Resorting have seen very small topics which small par-
A response to Read and Lane (AT 24[2]) to simple notions of the cultural construc- ties feel strongly about become key bargaining
tion of reality is not the answer. When I read, points when weak coalition governments are
I welcome the constructive intervention from from Reynolds (2007: 24), that ‘human social trying to exercise power. This could happen
Dwight Read and David Lane in this debate. structures arise from the mental constructs of in the UK, and anthropology – and its oldest
However it rests, in my view, on a wholly participant members of the society’, or from body, the RAI – should always be clearly
inadequate conception of the biological world. Read and Lane (2008: 26) that ‘social organi- politically neutral.
If I have understood them correctly, their zation in so-called kinship-based societies This may be a particular problem with guest
argument is that the ‘population thinking’ derives from a constructed, conceptual system editorials because editors do not always know
of Darwinian theory is sufficient for under- expressed through the logic of a kinship ter- what they will contain when they are commis-
standing evolutionary processes at the sub- minology’, I cannot help feeling a little sad. sioned. Editing is a difficult task, and the criti-
human level, but that with the emergence of These are echoes from the anthropology of 50 cism in this letter does not mean that I have
humans (and of culture), the phenomena with years ago. It is time to move on. l not enjoyed AT: I certainly feel that the current
which we deal jump to a higher level of com- Tim Ingold editor has created an interesting, challenging
plexity at which new dynamics apply, without University of Aberdeen and thoroughly readable journal which has
parallel in the history of life, namely those of tim.ingold@abdn.ac.uk enhanced the RAI’s position both within and
‘self-reflective, self-restructuring systems’. outside the anthropological world.
Bateson, G. 1973. Steps to an ecology of mind. London:
Societies, in this view, are the emergent prod- Fontana.
Niel Sebag-Montefiore
ucts of mind-brains already endowed, thanks Clark, A. 1997. Being there: Putting brain, body and world Suffolk IP14 6LR
to biological evolution, with certain ‘capaci- together again. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. nielsebagm@aol.com
Huxley, J.S. 1956. Evolution, cultural and biological. In:
ties’ for conceptualization or mental construc-
Thomas, W.L. (ed.) Current anthropology. Chicago:
tion. Vernon Reynolds (2007) adopts much the University of Chicago Press. As Hon. RAI Treasurer, Niel Sebag-
same position. It is one that has been around, Ingold, T. 2004. Beyond biology and culture: the meaning Montefiore steered the Institute through a
in one form or another, for the best part of a of evolution in a relational world. Social Anthropology difficult patch and he deservedly received the
12(2): 209-221.
century. It was advocated, for example, by Kroeber, A.L. 1917. The superorganic. American
RAI Patron’s Medal. He has the best inten-
Alfred Kroeber in his classic paper of 1917 on Anthropologist 19: 163-213. tions for the RAI and I fully endorse his call
‘the superorganic’, and in the influential mid- Read, D. and Lane, D. 2008. Darwinian evolution – broad for free, non-party-political debate in the
enough for culture? Anthropology Today 24(2): 26-27.
century writings of Julian Huxley (e.g. Huxley Institute’s journals.
Reynolds, V. 2007. Evolutionary biology and human culture.
1956). Anthropology Today 23(5): 23-24. Sebag-Montefiore’s assertions, however, are
In arguing for a ‘wider concept of evolu- problematic on three counts. First, his claim
tion’ (Ingold 2007: 17), my intent was not to that the editorials were ‘political’ begs the
reinforce the boundary between the biological TOO ‘POLITICAL’? question of what we mean by that expression.
and the cultural but to break it down – to find A complaint to the Editor re: Hart and Love The two guest editorials respectively criticized
a way of talking about evolutionary proc- (AT 24[2]) Naomi Klein’s oversimplied model of capi-
esses that would not require us to interject an talism (Hart) and considered the implications
unfathomable quantum leap from an animal to I write in response to the guest editorial by of oil scarcity for human civilization (Love).
a human level of being. It was also to protest Keith Hart in the April issue (AT 24[2]). In my These were certainly not party-political; and
against the reduction of ‘biology’ to a genetic view this is a completely unsuitable article to where do we draw the line between ‘political’
calculus of endogenous attributes. Darwinian be published in ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY – not and ‘non-political’ in the broader sense?
theory accounts for cumulative changes in because I agree or disagree with Hart’s views, Second, signed contributions represent the
gene frequencies in populations of organisms. but because it is a political, not an anthropo- opinions of their authors, not those of the
Evolution, however, is about their changing logical piece. Editorial independence on the Editor or the RAI, and, before calling for a
forms and behaviours. We can only understand content of a magazine is quite different from change in editorial policy, I encourage him
how forms and behaviours evolve by situ- independence of judgment about the quality to initiate debate with the authors in order to
ating the life-cycles of organisms within the and style of articles, which should of course be make sure that he has understood them. Third,

ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY Vol 24 No 3, June 2008 25

You might also like