How Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Petroski’s Emphasis on Cultural Criteria Can Explain Aspects of Human Society

Nathan Nemon
Humanities 260
2.21.13
TA: Cheryl Berriman
How Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Petroski’s Emphasis on Cultural
Criteria Can Explain Aspects of Human Society
Stephen Jay Gould’s claims that “odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution” and “a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce” 1 accurately express the core aspects of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. In Evolution of Useful Things2, Henry Petroski finds that optimality in the design of human made things is by nature unattainable because such constructions depend on cultural criteria that can vary. A framework combining Darwin’s evolutionary theory- marked by advantageous but imperfect changes that depend on historical context- and Petroski’s inclusion of cultural criteria can help characterize the evolution of social, technological and ideological developments in human society. Due to its dependence on culture and circumstance, progress in these arenas occurs at varying rates and is not governed by a static law dictating a single direction or outcome.
To understand Darwin’s evolutionary theory in its original application to organic species, it is necessary to understand the conditions it assumes and the two mechanisms through which it works. Darwin claims that, “as many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive… there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence.”3 He describes this existence as occurring inside complex and varying conditions of life affected by climate, natural events, and inter/ intra species interactions.
He also assumes that variability may exist in a given instance such that some organisms will have genetic advantages for survival over others.

The first mechanism in Darwin’s evolutionary theory is the introduction of variability due to a random, external cause. This might be a random gene mutation that creates an advantage to the owner or it could be a natural disaster that changes the environment and subsequently what are beneficial traits. The panda’s ‘thumb’ described by Gould is an example of a gene mutation that has provided an advantage of more efficient bamboo stripping. A species able to hunt fish may be better off in an environment that gets flooded as compared to an animal unable to fish.
The second, well-recognized mechanism is “natural selection” through which advantageous traits are preserved and accumulated. Darwin explains that “from the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form.”3 Species better adapted to their environment are naturally selected through the process of reproduction and inheritance. The original Pandas with genetically mutated thumbs had a higher probability of survival compared to others and thus were able to propagate the trait through offspring.
These two mechanisms of Darwin’s theory illuminate the haphazard, imperfect nature of evolution. Darwin’s observations of the contrivances of reproductive organs in
Orchids fashioned from common components of flowers demonstrate how evolution does not yield optimal designs but instead functional composites of previous adaptations and new genetic variations. It follows that complex organs are formed through “numerous, successive, slight modifications”3 and the extent to which any trait is beneficial depends on how it interacts with past adaptations and the current environment.
Petroski applies Darwin’s theory to the evolution of forks, generalizing his findings to all human made objects. He asserts object designs “don’t spring fully formed

from the mind of some maker but, rather, become shaped and reshaped through the
(principally negative) experiences of their users” and as such, “there can be no such thing as a ‘perfected’ artifact.” Reflecting on the continuity between objects and their antecedents, Petroski describes the history of artifacts and technology as “more than a cultural adjunct to the business of engineering and invention.” By defining success as fitting form to context such that we find no more points that fail to conform to the
“standard against which we judge,”2 it is further demonstrated that history and preference
(cultural criteria) are significant determinants of evolution in technology. It is impossible for any design to be the optimal outcome of requirements because the requirements of products are in conflict across various cultures.
All this is evidence that technological designs and organic species share in some of the characteristics of evolution described by Darwin. They involve incremental improvements to existing features leading to suboptimal equilibria persisting until another modification arises. The same is true for social and ideological developments.
Adrian Forty supports this by noting, “the products of design are in a direct relationship to the ideas of the society in which they are made.”2 Given that there are cultural criteria with which the advantages of modifications are assessed in technological, social and ideological arenas of society, it must be that there exists no law dictating a direction of progress independent of cultural setting. Petroski provides an example of varying paths of development caused by differences in cultural criteria in his study of eastern countries which use chop sticks and western countries using forks. As there is no uniform law of progress, reforms, inventions and ideas cannot be backward thinking because the advantages of its components are judged only in the context of the present.

The influence of existing government institutions on growth in the industrial revolution of the 18th century is an example of how the framework can explain social changes. Warm geographies with large plantations, such as in the Caribbean, experienced exploitive labor, minimal property rights and unequal wealth distributions whereas the northeast United States or Britain had greater wealth equality, defined property and labor rights and urban centers. The latter locations were much better adapted for the technological developments of the industrial revolution due to rights that fostered business activity and the availability of the workforce. Elites in warmer climates resisted systematic changes to protect profits. Institutions in the U.S. and Britain were adaptations that, in the new environment of the industrial revolution, gave its society an advantage. The accumulation of wealth and other “cargo” allowed for this adaptation to persist while slave institutions eventually failed.4
The human aspect of this framework does create some issues when applying its concepts to society. Namely, the first mechanism in Darwin’s theory that involves random events or mutations which generate advantages is different in the human setting.
Although randomness still plays a roll, the “coincidence of a perceived problem with an imagined solution”2 is required for a design change. Referencing George Basalla,
Petroski states, “whereas natural things arise out of random natural processes, made things come out of purposeful human activity manifested in psychological, economic and other social and cultural factors.” Since the form of made things is “always subject to change in response to their real or perceived shortcomings”2, the role of humans in the progress of various forms is evident. An example of an ideological adaptation subject to the agency of humans can be found in the rejection of Copernicus’s theory of

heliocentrism. Aristotelian philosophy in association with Ptolemaic astronomy dominated the intellectual climate at the time and prevented widespread acceptance of
Copernicus’s theory. Whereas the natural world Darwin observed is non-discriminatory and consistent in its response to improvements, human judgment can complicate the acceptance of a progressive, disruptive ideas. The mechanism through which advantages persist may also be questioned as aspects of human society are not “selected” through hereditary processes as is the case in Darwin’s theory.
Although humans role in identifying and introducing improvements into the evolutionary mechanism is subject to error in human judgment and is not entirely the same as in nature, the process is sufficient for the framework to outline how reforms and improvements persist. As Christopher Alexander states, humans are “agents simply through whom artifacts can evolve in an almost organic way” and “even the most aimless changes will eventually lead to well-fitting forms because of the tendency to equilibrium inherent in the organization of the process. All the agent need do is recognize failures when they occur, and to react to them.”2 Although humans may not identify failures (or advantages) perfectly and the process through which improvements persist is not strictly hereditary, it still holds that so long as humans continue to act in the interest of utility maximization as is assumed by rational choice theory, incremental improvements will be realized that resemble in style those of natural evolution. Of the multitude of patents filed in the U.S., for example, those that are attractive in the given socioeconomic climate based on their prospective use-value or profitability are “selected” or developed through investment and application.

The framework composed of Darwin’s theory of evolution and Petroski’s emphasis on cultural criteria can be applied to social, ideological and technological aspects of human society. Although the roles played by humans in the framework’s underlying mechanisms are not perfectly analogous to the components of natural evolutionary processes, the way it characterizes progress is similar giving the framework explanatory value. Using the framework it is demonstrated no singular law of progress exists due to differences in cultural criteria.
Citations
1. More Reflections in Natural History, Stephen J. Gould
2. Evolution of Useful Things, Henry Petroski
3. On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin
4. Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond

Citations: 1. More Reflections in Natural History, Stephen J. Gould 2. Evolution of Useful Things, Henry Petroski 3. On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin 4. Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond