David Huron suggests some interesting perspectives on the role of evolution in music. His initial observation of the concept of evolution as both a physiological AND psychological attribute sparked my interest immediately. From a personal perspective, the theory of evolution as a physiological term is a concept that I have not entirely embraced however, the psychological evolution of man/woman is undeniable considering the adaptive qualities man has had to adopt with regard to his environment both socially and geographically.
The view that music is a form of nonadaptive pleasure-seeking (NAPS) is interesting but ill-founded in my opinion. It seems unlikely that so many cultures would adopt a musical approach in their everyday lives, that children would be encouraged to create music, and that adults would dedicate their lives to the pursuit of music if music was simply NAPS. Huron confirms my sentiments (p. 59) "nonadaptive pleasure-seeking behaviors tend to be short-lived" - which we know music is certainly NOT. His correlation between drug/alcohol abuse and its predisposition to inhibit survival is a perfect example of how music does not fall into the same category.
Several of the evolutionary theories of music viz. mate selection, social cohesion, group effort, perceptual development, motor skill development, conflict resolution, safe time passing, and transgernational communication are very relevant in modern times (even though adaptations based on observation of modern times should be avoided p. 65).
Huron's focus on the role of music as a form of social bonding seems indisputable. His initial thoughts on the correlation between Williams syndrome and Asperger autism and their consistent social and musical relationship (p. 69) is very enlightening. He goes on to reveal 'Happy Birthday' as the most popular song of all history, another example of music and social bonding. And of course, I believe every individual can provide a personal example of music's ability to alter hormones and enhance mood.
A complimentary addition to this chapter is Josh McDermott's essay on 'The evolution of music' Nature 453, 287-288 (15 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/453287a; Published online 14 May 2008.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I liked Huron's chapter a lot -- the arguments were well arranged and a lot of material is covered - convincing - in a relatively short amount of space. His writing style is easy to follow and supported his arguments. I did find myself hoping for more research to support his hypothesis, but he did make note that such is simply unavailable.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed learning about the NAPS behaviors, though it was quickly dismissed (and rightly so, in my opinion) that music would be included in that category.
I found the case study of the tribe, as well as his two case studies of mental illness, to support his argument well. It would be more convincing if particular brain regions (along with their functions) were discussed a bit more.
What I found most fascinating about this writing was about the role of grooming turning to the role of language in humans. The argument made sense. I wonder how widely accepted this point-of-view is. The step from language to music also seemed plausible, but would also have been stronger if it had been supported by more evidence from neurobiological research (I'm thinking of Patel, for instance).
Nonetheless, Huron meant this article as an investigation, not an authoritative theory, and he succeeds in his investigation. I would be interested in reading more about the grooming/language/music connection elsewhere if such literature exists.
[Disclaimer: Please note that these are my unfiltered, un-fact-checked comments, based on my reading, so please forgive any mistakes. I'd rather write openly, make mistakes and learn than feel paralyzed in ensuring that I am 100% accurate in my presentation.]
Todd, it may be premature to ask considering our minimal reading thus far, but what do you think?
ReplyDelete1) Is music an evolutionary adaptation (considering Huron's conclusions p.73)
OR
2)Simply enculturation
The verdict is still out for me...perhaps we should revisit the idea down the road
My personal opinion is not too exciting... I suspect that there must be some element of evolutionary adaptation in humans simply because of the pervasiveness of music in our lives, throughout various cultures. However, that raw adaptation is likely shaped significantly through our culture (this we can see from musics of different cultures... the people have the same basic abilities but they are expressed in very different ways).
ReplyDeleteWhat is your opinion?
ReplyDeleteWhen you post on the other two readings, I'll comment on those as well. I don't think I am able to start a new topic, since this is your blog (which is fine).
ReplyDeleteAll animals make sound for communication, many make somewhat musical sound, is this biological? Do song birds sing in order to survive?
ReplyDeleteThe hearing organ of human fetus is the first to be developed. Babies learn through hearing first. Does this have to do with survival?cw
Dr. Wang, in reply to your comment... I think that sound is quite definitely an evolutionary adaptation for survival -- hearing an approaching enemy, communicating (even with grunts) etc. all depend on sound and hearing. I think that the possible delineation here is whether *music* as opposed to *sound* has an evolutionary adaptive value. So at this point it becomes important to clearly define what is meant by "music." Is the singing of a bird music from the point of view of the bird (or, for that matter, all birds?), or is that sound music only from a human's point of view? If music is a subcategory of sound, and sound clearly serves an evolutionary adaptive purpose, that seems like a plausible argument for the potential adaptive value of music.
ReplyDeleteHow would you go about delineating music from sound in this context? Thoughts?