THE STRUGGLE FOR ACCEPTANCE

EMILY A. GATLIN
ECOLOGY & EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY 305
DR. RANDALL SMALL
31 MARCH 2009

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant.
We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
–Albert Einstein, Nobel Prize for Physics in 1921

For the vast majority of my adolescence, all I wanted was to have blonde hair. Growing up as

an adopted Asian-American girl in a southern all-Caucasian family, the dream to “fit-in” even within

my immediate family was short-lived. My dark hair and dark eyes greatly contrasted my mom’s fair

skin, blonde-hair, and green eyes; likewise, my dad’s light-brown hair and blue eyes provided no

source of alikeness either. Going to school within Cleveland, TN failed to provide any cultural

diversity. I eventually learned to cope with my physical appearance from nature amidst the adopted

environment randomly chosen for me. Despite my obvious “different” features, I managed to escape

the perils of childhood trauma from being an “outsider.” Shockingly, my blunt openness as a five-

year-old child about embracing my “differences” allowed me to gain a large enough network of friends

to appear “just like everyone else.” However, fifteen-years later, I still find myself constantly

attempting to blend-in seamlessly. To my surprise, at 22-years-old, I finally realize that I am not the

only one trying to fit-in and my lifelong struggle might just be biology or more specifically, due to the

theory of evolution.

As humans, we often try to trick ourselves into thinking that evolution is concept in biology,

not an important factor within our own lives. However, the desire to “fit-in” itself demonstrates a

core evolutionary concept regarding sociality. A key element of sociality is the simple ability “to

distinguish group members from nonmembers” (Tsutsui et al. 2003: 1078). For instance, within ant

populations, Neil D. Tsutsui, Andrew V. Suarez and Richard K, Grosberg (2003: 1078) discuss how

1|Page
 EMILY A. GATLIN THE STRUGGLE FOR ACCEPTANCE 31 MARCH 2009

the invasion of the Argentine ants into California demonstrate that even small creatures

demonstrate the discernment between individuals that belong and do not belong. The “individuals

with rare labels should be rejected more often than individuals with common labels; they will also

incur the costs associated with rejection [like] energetic costs, injury, or death” (Tsutsui et al. 2003:

1078). Although many might argue, well, humans possess no similarity to ants at all. However, the

social framework described within the complex social framework among the ants possesses uncanny

parallels to human society. For example, the “phenotypic label” to cue the ants about a possible

intruder seems reminiscent of racial relations in the United States.1 Within the U.S., we often

ascribe physical attributes to convey a deeper meaning about the individual—from skin color to body

type; we use these “labels” to interpret specific data to apply toward massive groups of people. Sadly,

cultural examples provide ample data2 showing the human tendency toward violent aggression to the

“different” much like the response elicited from the native Californian ants to the Argentinean ants

(Tsutsui et al. 2003). Clearly, we are not as far away from the animal world as we presume to

believe. Thus, the ingrained desire to be similar to those around us is natural and we still falter

under its persuasive power.

The desire to conform allows the formation of complex culture through the process of imitated

behavior (Poirer & Hussey 1982: 134). These social adaptations allow us to adapt to the multitude of

environments that exist around the world. It follows that to understand the development of human

complex cultures, first it is necessary to understand the basics behind possible origins of how we

learn. Simon M. Reader and Kevin N. Laland (2002:4437) designed an experiment to test if social

and asocial learning evolved together or separate by using a computer simulation to map across

phylogenic species’ lineages the graphs of “contrasts for tool use frequency vs. contrasts for

1 In particular, the South

2 To save time, I chose not to list the examples of racial injustices in the paper, but some examples are (and
NOT limited to African-Americans alone) Civil Rights Era, Jim Crow Laws, Tuskegee syphilis experiment, etc.
However, even today within the U.S., the prejudices against ethnicities, sexual orientation, etc continue and
still provoke violence, i.e. Matthew Shepherd

2|Page
 EMILY A. GATLIN THE STRUGGLE FOR ACCEPTANCE 31 MARCH 2009

innovation frequency.” Reader & Laland (2002:4439) reported a positive correlation between the

instances of innovation and brain ratio. This implies either that within the primate species, the

highly creative individual possesses a selective advantage over their less talented counterparts due to

this correlation between technical and social behaviors, or primates merely possess a large brain in

order to adapt to the selective pressures differently. Thus, the evolution of the large brain within

primates is an adaptation arising from multiple sources of selective factors (Reader & Laland

2002:4440). However, the evolution of the large brain ultimately leads to the development of complex

cultures through learning from imitation.

The definition for a cultural meme is “an element of culture which can be passed on by

imitation” (Higgs 2000: 1355). Children learn to follow elders’ behavior in order to survive within

human society. These elders whether genetically related to the child or not, still act as cultural

parents to the child and transmit memes (Higgs 2000: 1356). Here, adoptees like me, still completely

embrace our adopted parents as cultural sources. Although born in South Korea, U.S. Southern

culture is the only culture I know from this type of cultural transmittance. Given my social context,

it is easy to see that memes help ensure that the child will gain social acceptance. However, despite

the implementation of negative memes, the ability for imitation possesses a much stronger positive

effect overall than any potentially negative blindly imitated meme. In contrast, Laureano Castro and

Miguel A. Toro (2004: 10235-10236) contend that the origin of complex human cultures also requires

the ability to discern between behaviors. Castro & Toro (2004: 10236) argue that primates adapt

through learning by imitation through “(1) to discover and to learn a behavior, (2) to test and to

evaluate the learned behavior, (3) to reject or to incorporate the behavior into the behavioral

repertory.” Imitation allows the discovery of new behaviors without the complete reinvention (Castro

& Toro 2004: 10236). Therefore, the human-selection of cultural behaviors allows us to continue the

development of our species based on in-situ cultural knowledge.

3|Page
 EMILY A. GATLIN THE STRUGGLE FOR ACCEPTANCE 31 MARCH 2009

According to Mesoudi et al., (2004: 2) culture is “acquired information such as knowledge,

beliefs, and values that is inherited through social learning, and expressed in behavior and artifacts.”

Upon the construction of a cultural framework, it follows that there is the tendency for culture to try

to mold to limit the “different” or “weird” individuals in order to maintain social cohesion. Many

studies have looked instances like eyewitness testimony to show the fallibility of humans to discern

cultural bias from fact (Mesoudi et al. 2004: 3). In these studies, the human subjects often allowed

cultural prejudices to influence their account (Mesoudi et al. 2004: 3). However, it is crucial to realize

that variation enables the propagation of the human species as heterogeneous groups “outperform

individuals in tasks of problem-solving or decision-making” (Mesoudi et al. 2004: 3). As a result,

variation within a population enables selective forces to act upon the variation to produce a more

prolific culture (Mesoudi et al. 2004: 3). Thus, the concept of cultural evolution is the idea that

culture changes or evolves much like other physical traits—“the selective retention of favorable

cultural variants” (Mesoudi, Whiten & Laland, 2004: 2). Many anthropologists and social scientists

throughout the years apply this biological theoretical framework to explain culture and its selective

impact on humanity.

Anthropologist Leslie White viewed culture as the learned behavior developed as an

evolutionary adaptation consisting of technological, sociological, ideological and “sentimental or

attitudinal” (White 2004/1959a:183) systems. Culture is not an innate quality, but a learned

behavior system. It is a “suprabiological character [that]…exists and behaves and is related to man

as if it were non-biological in character” (White 2004/1959a:182, emphasis in original) and is hence

subjected to natural selection. Humans need “basic energy requirements, to be protected from the

elements and defend themselves from enemies” (Moore 2004:184). In accordance to White, selection

favors culture due to technological developments allowing an easier procurement of basic needs. As a

result, technology defines culture. White explains “culture as an elaborate thermodynamic,

mechanical system…[the] functioning determined by the amount of energy harnessed and by the way

4|Page
 EMILY A. GATLIN THE STRUGGLE FOR ACCEPTANCE 31 MARCH 2009

it is put to work” (White 2004/1949:185). The mathematical formula

E T  C
if E  Energy,T  Efficiency, C  Cultural Development

indicates the direct proportional relationship between cultural complexity and the product of

quantity of efficient thermodynamic energy consumed times the technological efficiency (White

2004/1949:186). Thus, the benefit of a big brain within primate is obvious. In summation, White like

his predecessor, Edward Tylor who saw “the order of technological change is obvious: one innovation

leads to another” (Moore 2004: 13), views progression as vital element to understanding culture.

Anthropology grabbed my attention for the past 4-years due to its emphasis on the collective

background of all humans. Look at an artifact, archaeologists explain where it is from and how it got

there. Discover a random bone, a forensic anthropologist will tell you which side of the body along

with age, race, height, etc3. This fascinated me to the core. As an adoptee, I have never known my

biological parents. Every doctor visit elicits a secret envy as few people around me put huge question

marks along the entire “family history” portion. With that said, the theory of evolution never fails to

encapsulate my complete attention. Upon entering college, I realized that the origins of humankind

and even animal life served as the “missing link” that I felt was robbed from me through not knowing

my own biological history. However, while the biological nature plays a crucial element to many

definitive features, I know from experience that it is not everything. Culture influences individuals,

and in turn, the evolution of a population. Humans are complex—evolved from both nature and

culture. Therefore, as humans, it is crucial that we understand culture as a governing force that

affects our lives every day. Despite the fallacies within culture, we are heavily reliant on it. For that

reason, we should continue to strive to improve it, build upon it, and add our testament to the

cultural history of humankind.

3 Depending on the type of bone found—this clearly does not hold true if it is a single phalanx, for example.

5|Page
 EMILY A. GATLIN THE STRUGGLE FOR ACCEPTANCE 31 MARCH 2009

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beals, K.L. and Kelso, A.J.
(1975) 'Genetic Variation and Cultural Evolution', American Anthropologist, vol. 77, no. 3,
Septemeber, pp. 566-579.
Castro, L. and Toro, M.A.
(2004) 'The evolution of culture: From primate social learning to human culture', Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, Madrid, Spain, 10235-10240.
Chibnik, M.
(1981) 'The evolution of cultural rules', Journal of Anthropological Research, vol. 37, no. 3, pp.
256-268.
Enquist, M., Arak, A., Ghirlanda, S. and Wachtmeister, C.-A.
(2002) 'Spectacular Phenomena and Limits to Rationality in Genetic and Cultural Evolution',
Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, vol. 357, no. 1427, Ocotober, pp. 1585-1594.
Higgs, P.G.
(2000) 'The mimetic transition: a simulation study of the evolution of learning by imitation',
Proceedings: Biological Sciences, Manchester, UK, 1355-1361.
Leimar, O. and Hammerstein, P.
(2000) 'Evolution of cooperation through indirect reciprocity', Proceedings: Biological
Sciences, Berlin, Germany, 745-753.
Mesoudi, A., Whiten, A. and Laland, K.N.
(2004) 'Perspective: is human cultural evolution Darwinian? Evidence reviewed from the
perspective of Origin of Species', Evolution, vol. 58, no. 1, January, pp. 1-11.
Moore, J.D.
(2004) 'Leslie White: Evolution Emergent', in Moore, J.D. Visions of Culture: An Introduction
to Anthropological Theories & Theorists, 2nd edition, Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Poirer, F.E. and Hussey, L.K.
(1982) 'Nonhuman primate learning: the importance of learning from an evolutionary
perspective', Anthropology & Education Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 2, Summer, pp. 133-148.
Reader, S.M. and Laland, K.N.
(2002) 'Social intelligence, innovation, and enhanced brain size in primates', Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, Cambridge, UK, 4436-4441.
Tsutsui, N.D., Suarez, A.V. and Grosbery, R.K.
(2003) 'Genetic diversity, asymmetrical aggression, and recognition in a widespread invasive
species', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Berkeley, CA, 1078-1083.

6|Page