Call Us: US - +1 845 478 5244 | UK - +44 20 7193 7850 | AUS - +61 2 8005 4826

Politics and Poetics of Rural Japanese Women.

Similarly, the behavioral ecological origins of gene-culture coevolution models are also not widely recognized in the biocultural study of religion today. In the early days of human behavioral ecology, it appeared that gene-culture coevolutionary approaches would be incorporated into human behavioral ecology., for example, published an important chapter on cultural inheritance in what is universally considered the bible of human behavior ecology, Smith and Winterhalder’s Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior. And many of the pioneering researchers within human behavioral ecology (e.g., M. Borgerhoff-Mulder, K. Hill, and E.A. Smith) published works employing gene-cultural coevolutionary models. Lcultural evolutionary theorists all have extensive training in behavioral ecology, which is consistently reflected in their modeling of social phenomena and reliance on optimization and ESS analyses. This training in behavioral ecology, however, is not prominent among those currently studying the cultural evolution of religion. Are behavioral ecological models, which are largely agnostic with regard to psychological design, simply ill-equipped for the study of something like religion, which seemingly demands psychological explanation? We do not think so. Indeed, behavioral ecological models, with their focus on phenotypic plasticity and socioecological context appear to be essential for understanding how humans respond to rapidly changing religious environments. Behavioral ecologists model short-term adaptive phenotypic change as responses to local socioecological variations and focus on the shortest temporal scale of any of the evolutionary approaches to human behaviorMoreover, behavioral ecological attention to fitness remains essential for understanding the evolution of religion. Unfortunately, our understanding of the fitness consequences of religious commitments, historically as well as currently, remains surprisingly limited. The failure of the biocultural study of religion to develop sustained research programs on the behavioral ecology of religion has come at a significant cost.