 |

Contents

Section 1 Palaeoanthropology

Section 2 Social and socio-
cultural systems

Section 3 Ontogeny and symbolism

Section 4 Language systems

Links
|
 |

The role of ontogenesis in human
evolution and development

Chris Sinha

Abstract

Darwin's theory of evolution caused a revolutionary change in
the concept of time. Evolution did not merely extend history
backwards, it brought into being an entirely different order
of time, in which different time-scales (durées)
co-existed. Understanding the relations between time-scales
- phylogenetic, ontogenetic, historical - was a major
preoccupation of both biologists and psychologists. The
best-known theory of this type was and is Haeckel's
'biogenetic law' of recapitulation. The metaphor of 'layers'
of time - which, because of its association with
palaeontology, is christened the 'palaeomorphic metaphor' -
was central to the work even of those who, like the Soviet
psychologist Vygotsky, rejected recapitulationism. Vygotsky's
genetic psychology assumed the 'geological' stratification of
'lower' and 'higher' mental functions, corresponding
respectively to biological and socio-cultural stages of
evolution.
The mechanism proposed by Vygotsky for the development of
'higher' mental functions in the individual was
internalization. However, this concept suffers from a
logical problem, since it seeks to explain psychological
processes in terms which presuppose those very processes.
Vygotsky also emphasized the importance of tool-use in both
the ontogeny and phylogeny of higher mental processes, drawing
an analogy between tool-use and the use of conventional signs,
including language. Again, however, this analogy is of
limited usefulness, since neither tool-use nor cultural
transmission is unique to humans.
An alternative account suggests rather that certain biological
features of human infancy were selected, during the stages of
human evolution post-dating the invention of tools, for their
facilitative value in the process of what Vygotsky's colleague
Leontiev called 'appropriation'. Infancy is then seen as a
specific niche in which adaptive parameters are set by
processes of individual appropriation, in the first instance,
of canonical (socially standard) rules governing the use of
tools and other artefacts. On this account, the biology of
human infancy is a product of the co-evolution of culture and
biology. Recent studies of infant cognition and social
behaviour lend support to such an account. Infancy, on this
account, played a crucial role in the 'socialization' of human
biology.

|
 |