Cultural selection discussion

Regal category - perhaps typified by the philosophy: Individuals exist for the benefit of society. Ethnocentrism, racism, material growth, expansion.
Regal Politics - Powerful central government,imperialism, uniformity, intolerance,censorship, severe punishments,witch-hunts.

Kalyptic category - Society exists for the benefit of the individual. Individualism, tolerance, human rights, protection of natural resources.
Kalyptic Politics - Decentralized government,democracy, tolerance, peace.

First of all I fail to see the original r and k strategies within the new cultural categories - but then Agner does say that we should see his distinctions as separate formulations and not analogies.

The problem is then "Do Agner's categories apply for many examples in the real world." I would say - 'no'. For example; Mrs Thatcher (whom I would imagine most would say had very 'Regal' tendancies) famously believed that 'there was no such thing as society' and proceeded to try and restructure society along very individualistic lines which concomitantly produced a very selfish and materialistic society. The suggestion that individualism is necessarily in the same category as tolerance, protection of natural resources or even peace - appears unsupportable.

Ager says; "Generally, you should expect different aspects of a culture to be in reasonable agreement with regard to cultural r/k-status, but it is unlikely that you will find perfect agreement." However, this surely undermines the usefulness of the categorisations as selection strategies within culture. In Biology you will never find an organism which produces thousands of young - yet each have large parental investment or individually consume large amounts of local resources (e.g. by growing to a great size). The r and k strategies withstand examination well - and without the need to fudge the categories.

In conclusion: r and k strategies can be better applied to culture as direct analogies - e.g. an organisation which mail shots a thousand clients with a pamphlet compared to an organisation which knocks on the doors of individuals and invests the time to convert them to a point of view. Agner's Regal and Kalyptic strategies are neither robust nor especially useful - and say more about Agner's political persuasion rather than selection strategies in culture.

Whether or not Gillett is correct, I can postulate some reasons why loud volume began to be used:

a) early 60s audiences were very noisy (Ringo Starr's famous comments about not being able to hear what John, Paul and George were playing because of the noise of the audience seem absurd when one considers how deafeningly loud a modern band can be, but early 60s music was really that quiet by modern standards)

b) late 60s audiences got bigger (stadia, festivals, etc - if you're playing to 100,000 people they've all got to hear)

c) here I'm getting a bit cynical - loudness is a convenient cover for those who don't actually play very well.

Clive James in his memoirs has a vivid description of the first time he heard Cream in 1966 - 'it was a beat that hurt'. This, I think, is quite close to Gillett's attitiude.

It's not just in concerts that volume exerts the effect of subjugation (borrowing some of Gillett's rhetoric here, not because I necessarily believe it, just to make my point a more visible target), in north London (and I dare say also in other parts of the world), gang members cruise the streets pounding out music at high volume ('discos that pass in the night') for the purposes of reminding the populace whose territory they are on, and that they'd better do as they are told. A 140 decibel alpha male baboon territorial marker call - nothing kalyptic about that!!!!

So that's my thesis - rock music is actually as regal as one could wish for. What do you reckon?

Derek

Agner states:
“The concept of regal may be delineated by the following definitions:
1.a regal selection is a cultural selection process dominated by inter-group conflicts or other collective dangers.
2.a regal culture is the result of such a selection, or
3.a culture which spends a high proportion of its resources on expansion or defense, or
4.a culture which limits the freedom of the individual members and makes considerable demands on the resources of the individuals for the purpose of strengthening the group.
5.a regal cultural product is a cultural phenomenon which is part of the strategy of a regal culture or otherwise a typical product of a regal culture.”

I think rock music could almost be _typified_ by inter-group conflict. The whole movement of rebellion which has grown up around rock could be seen as conflict between (members of other music traditions (e.g. mods and rockers) or societal figures (e.g. monarchy/establishment) or other gangs (e.g. ‘gansta rap’))

Current music could be seen as arising from the selection pressures of such inter-group conflict so I guess it is possible to interpret rock music as a regal cultural product. It is _also_ possible to interpret rock music as a kalyptic cultural product. In fact, rock music has elements of regal and kalyptic selection - which I think does one of the following; a) illustrate that rock music is a poor example of a clear distinction between regal and kalyptic culture; or b) illustrate that regal and kalyptic culture are ambiguous categories of selection open to almost any amount of interpretation to suit your particular political tastes.

My biggest problem is that Agner’s selective strategies are couched in too much moral and political language. I mean what right thinking person could ever support the good of the group over the good of the individual and foster racism and the destruction of the natual environment! J. S. Mill, the great humanitarian was also a utilitarian for crying out loud!! As I said, I fear r and k cultural selection tell us more about Agner’s pseudo-political beliefs than cultural evolution...

Thank you for your interest in my theory.

First, I want to emphasize that our society is not one-dimensional. The cultural r/k dimension cannot explain everything about a person or a thing. In fact, our culture is so complex and diversified that you can find examples of anything and exceptions to any rule. Try to read some (post-)modern sociology books, and you will notice how diffuse the theories are.

Nick Rose thinks that my cultural r/k theory is not as robust as the biological r/K theory because it can't explain Margaret Thatcher's eccentricities. My comments to this:

1. What makes you think that Mrs Thatcher is one of the most regal women on Earth? Conservatism is not the same as regality.
2. You are giving a brief citation: 'there was no such thing as society' out of context. I don't know what she means by that, but don't tell me that she is an anarchist.
3. She probably doesn't mean the same by individualism as I do. Individualism to her may be economic liberalism or laissez faire policy. What I meant by individualism (in a very different context), was that individual differences in taste and life-style are valued rather than repressed. Maybe I haven't expressed myself clear enough.
4. The biological r/K theory is not as robust as you think (which I also explain), and no sociological theory is 'robust' if your criterion for robustness is that it has no exception.

And then to the claim by Charlie Gillett that the high volume of rock music exerts the effect of subjugation or totalitarian control:

1. Theories about art are extremely difficult to discuss because everybody's opinion is colored by their personal taste and art perception.
2. At page 208f (sorry, not available online) I give some examples of aesthetic debates which, I claim, at the unconscious level are negotiations about the desired social structure. This may also apply to Gillett although his dislike for rock music is not expressed in terms of aesthetics.
3. Turning up the volume of music is simply to amplify the message, whatever that message may be. An opera playing at high volume is certainly not the same as a loud rock concert.
4. I have never seen any humans marking their territory by playing music (I don't live in London). While your interpretation of the gang members' motives for playing rock music may be right, this is certainly not the primary function of rock music. I fact, there may be many other reasons for playing loud music:
   - seeking attention and show off: Watch my cool car!
   - seeking contact: Come everybody, and party with me!
   - creating an extatic mood for dancing, etc. 
5. Nick Rose characterizes the movement of rebellion, connected with rock music, as inter-group conflict. No: rebellion against authorities is intra-group conflict according to my model. i.e. a sign of a kalyptization process in progress.
6. I don't see rock music as a vehicle for conflict between rivalizing subcultures. In fact, rock music is happily mixed with all kinds of other genres.
7. Rock music is a very broad category. For example, heavy metal is more regal than techno.
8. Baboons are predominantly K-selected in the biological model.

I must admit, though, that there are things around rock music that keep puzzling me. Why do some motorcycle gangs and neo-nazi groups listen to rock music? I can think of the following explanations:

1. They are part of the broad youth culture and have not developed their own artistic identity and their own composers.
2. Their regal beliefs may be the most conspicuous trait in the eyes of outsiders, but other aspects may be more important to the members of that subculture.
3. Other messages in the rock music may be more important to them than the r/k message, for example messages about youth, strength, masculinity, or freedom.
4. While rebellion is most often a process of kalyptic subordinates rebelling against a regal authority, it may also be the opposite: regal subgroups rebelling against a kalyptic society. Maybe the same message works either way.

It is more easy to explain why some religious groups use rock music when proselytizing: They are simply using it as bait to attract young people.

I'm not sure that the sorry state of post-modern theorising about culture is something we should import into evolutionary theories of culture.

(Light-hearted aside) Check out the following web-site www.csse.monash.edu.au/community/postmodern.html

"Nick Rose thinks that my cultural r/k theory is not as robust as the biological r/K theory because it can't explain Margaret Thatcher's eccentricities."

That's not entirely fair - Thatcher was simply the first example that came to mind. I felt one (difficult) example was better than simply listing a dozen - would it be helpful if people listed as many exceptions to the r/k distinction they could think of?

"My comments to this:
1.What makes you think that Mrs Thatcher is one of the most regal women on Earth? Conservatism is not the same as
regality."

However, Conservatism (like all right wing thinking perhaps) thrives in an environment rich in inter-group conflict. Mrs Thatcher was also at her most popular (and culturally successful?) during the war with Argentina over the ownership of the Falkland islands. I don't know about the *most* regal woman (I'm sure Elizabeth I was worse!) - but Mrs Thatcher must surely rate pretty high!?

"2.You are giving a brief citation: 'there was no such thing as society' out of context. I don't know what she means by
that, but don't tell me that she is an anarchist."

No, as far as I understood it she believed that there was no such thing as society - simply a collection of individuals. She was by no means an anarchist - she was simply refuting the socialist doctrine.

"3.She probably doesn't mean the same by individualism as I do. Individualism to her may be economic liberalism or
laissez faire policy. What I meant by individualism (in a very different context), was that individual differences in taste and life-style are valued rather than repressed. Maybe I haven't expressed myself clear enough."

Perhaps you need to re-think the terms you use. 'Individualism' can also be very selfish and destructive (e.g. liberal economics and the exploitation of planetary resources) - and working for the good of the group can be very beneficial for all. (e.g. the National Health Service in the UK)

"4.The biological r/K theory is not as robust as you think (which I also explain), and no sociological theory is 'robust' if your criterion for robustness is that it has no exception."

I accept that biological r/k theory might have exceptions - but there are less exceptions than there are example of the rule working. Under that criteria I feel your theory of cultural r/k selection is not very robust.

Cheers,

Nick

A good Rock Star should just be lively creative exhibitionist individual.

The culture of Rock and Roll, from inception, did face danger of sorts. But it was only a culture war. Hence theatrical pseudo Regalism was the natural resistance. The demands on the individual to strengthen the group, are likewise primarily theatrical. The Kiss Army, for exemple, does not actually press any real demands of National Service!

The uniform of the rocker is the modified car and the baseball hat turned backward, the classical uniform is black-tie. In general having everything to do with group identity and very little to do with the individual. This is why it is so easy to manipulate these groups, i.e. sell them more music, turn them into brown shirts, ect.