Reply to Winterhalder’s Behavioral and Other Human Ecologies: Critique, Response and Progress through Criticism

Introduction In anthropology, the primary goal is understanding the human condition, what makes humans human or explaining human variation and change. To critically assess what a given theory has to offer anthropological attempts to understand the human condition requires a detailed understanding of a theory and its components. For some it may seem that there is a contradiction between the goal of theory-building and that of holism. After all, theories often make generalizations and attempt to simplify in order to understand. However, holism, as a fundamental principle of anthropology, goes for the big picture. That is, holism emphasizes that in order to understand a cultural system one must understand the “relations,” “webs,” or “interactions” between different subsystems or institutions—social, political, economic, religious, etc. Holism is invaluable in guarding against overly facile theoretical conclusions that are based on partial or single aspects of the human condition. While holism does not prevent retaining elements of simplicity in understanding human variation and change, simplifications or theoretical generalizations should be consistent with general anthropological insights as to what it means to be human. Attention to scale is crucial, for some simplifications might only apply to interactions at particular levels of human social organization. And, sometimes, theoretical simplifications may turn out to be flawed. So what about Anthropological Evolutionary Behavioral Ecology (AEBE)? Theories or paradigms which rest on unverified assumptions and faulty premises are likely to produce questionable simplifications. In AEBE, many simplifications or genReply to Winterhalder’s Behavioral and Other Human Ecologies: Critique, Response and Progress through Criticism