history of human culture
man is by nature (instinct) social animals. He has been shaped by evolution over a 4 million year period to live in small tribes. With the invention of fire and tools about 2 million years ago, his social life became that of a warrior/hunter.The survival of the individual and immediate family, in those harsh times, depended on the survival of the tribe.Even in these early times each human became members of several groups within the tribe.Females were primarily attached to their own children but also grouped with other females for camp maintenance, care of the sick and wounded, and group food preparation.Those without children grouped for local foraging for food and campfire fuel.Each male primarily served his own family unit, providing food and raw materials for housing and clothing.Males formed fishing, hunting or foraging groups to gather communal food.The males also grouped with all of the other males for defense of tribe and territory.Tribal management and leadership rested with a select group. The drives which cause the human to gather into groups and sub-groups are instinctive, the product of millions of years of evolution.Human instincts have never been uniform, and many instincts are selfish in nature.Successful group effort requires rules of conduct that everyone follow.Many of these rules require suppression of some instincts and augmentation of others.Behavior which provides benefit to the survival of the group (and ultimately the species) is encouraged and behavior which harms the survival of the group is discouraged.Intellectual control over instinct (self-discipline) developed as a distinguishing characteristic of the human.The more disciplined the tribe, the more focused its work, the better it survived.A description of the summed social behavior within a group (tribe or sub-group) is called its culture. Each individual within the group is autonomous, but cooperative for a common cause.Each is willing (indeed is driven by his own instincts to do so) to trade certain personal freedoms for the benefits he will gain from the group.As a free-spirit, each individual in the group contributes his behavior to the culture.The 'culture' of a group is not an entity with certain characteristics.The 'culture' of a group is the name given to a descriptive summation of the behavioral characteristics of the group.
Management and planning was required within these ancient tribes.The decision on when to move a camp, for example, and where it should be moved, was critical to the survival of the entire tribeThese actions are not only behaviors themselves, and therefore part of the cultural description, they effect all of the behaviors of the individuals within the tribe.As with tribal leadership, the economic structure was also a part of the cultural description since it detailed the acceptable tribal norms in bartering and trading.
This is an important distinction.A tenet of intellectual elitist ideology (from Marxist roots) is that it is not the horse which pulls the wagon, it is the wagon which abuses the horse by requiring its labor, in spite of the horse being the active element and the wagon the passive.In a like fashion, they claim that it is not the summed behavior of the individuals which defines the culture, it is the culture which robs the individual of its freedom by forcing its rules on the individual as a means of control.This, then, removes behavioral responsibility from the individual and places it on the culture, in spite of the fact that the individual is the active element and the culture the passive (being merely a description of the summation of all of the behaviors in the group).They also eliminate the overlying government and the economic system as portions of the culture, in order to claim it is they who use the culture to abuse the 'people', when in actual fact these two factors are extremely important in their contribution to the behavior of the individual and therefore to the description of their summed behaviors (culture).This also ignores the fact that a large portion of the group (about 70% in the US) are people who work in and manage those activities.
In a free society, the individual is responsible for and should be held accountable for his own actions, since he alone makes the behavioral decision.If he is a member of a certain group he must expect to follow the rules of that group.Unfortunately, many want the benefits of the action of a particular group without sacrificing the necessary personal freedoms to serve as a member of that group.
The ability of man to provide a set of group acceptable behaviors is the result of man's evolution.The details within a cultural set of behavioral standards (such as the language spoken) are incidentalMan developed the ability to speak.It matters not what language he speaks, if the language can provide the needed communication.It matters not what clothing a culture dictates, if they are protective of both man's environmental and his culture's social behavioral requirements. So cultures do not evolve from the simple to the complex, it is man's ability to provide cultures from the simple to the complex that evolved.During the evolution of man, the complexity of his culture increased in stages, along with and following the evolution of man's cultural ability.Once man was capable of a complex society and had formed one, others were formed by derivation or modification.If each element within a group of cultures satisfies the parameter required, though wide differences in practices may exist, then each culture meets the needs of man for a culture.
Any discussion of culture as a causal portion of the process is in error.Culture is an effect of man's evolutionary process, not a cause.Any discussion of culture must be in the vein that man changed, then the complexity of his culture (behavior) changed.This is not to say that all behavior is strictly specified in detail in the coding of the DNA.No complex animal is completely instinctive. Tidak ada hewan kompleks benar-benar naluriah. There are memory and reason in all.If a behavior in a culture should drift to an action so bizarre that it adversely affects the evolutionary birthrate, evolution, if unrestrained, will quickly nip it in the bud
The behavior of man (his culture) can affect his ability to survive as a species. An example would be the result of man allowing his population to expand without control, by that threatening two catastrophic consequences: (1) When a population is expanding, natural selection is not allowed to remove degrading mutations from the gene pool unless they are immediately catastrophic.The result is a general degradation of all of man's characteristics such as intelligence, longevity, health, and the passions such as mothers' love, compassion, cooperation, etc. along with the substitution of their opposites.The resulting culture drifts toward self-destruction.These characteristics are visible today The worldwide ecology, on which man feeds, is limited in resources. (2)Over-population brings disease, starvation, and death.
Sumber : http://www.onelife.com/psy/culhist.html