I appreciate Baumard's approach to explaining great patterns of cultural change through proximate causes on human behavior. However, I do not entirely agree with his main hypothesis that the change to an “affluence mindset” was a major factor influencing England's accelerated rate of innovation in the eighteenth century. In this commentary, I propose two alternative explanations for such cultural change. I focus on the influence of cultural interconnectedness and in-group cooperation on the changes in the psychology of English people and their innovative behavior. Finally, I will argue for a shift toward seeing innovation as a social product, instead of the product of isolated individuals.
Cultural interconnectedness
Cultural evolutionary models have demonstrated that cultural interconnectedness is important to generate innovations and promote the evolution of innovation-enhancing institutions (Derex & Boyd Reference Derex and Boyd2015; Reference Derex and Boyd2016; Henrich Reference Henrich, Shennan and O'Brien2009). Derex and Boyd (Reference Derex and Boyd2015; Reference Derex and Boyd2016), for example, showed that innovations are more common in groups of individuals than isolated individuals and that partially connected groups innovate more than isolated and fully connected groups. If innovation is a product of cultural interconnectedness, the reason for the increased rate of innovation in England might be simply that England was in the best position to benefit from intensive contact with other cultures: first, because of its long history of being a part of other empires and subject to successive invasions; and second, because it was one of the most successful empires in history (Jackson Reference Jackson2013). Therefore, it is likely that colonialism and the international trade provided the English with different raw materials, other technologies, or cultural products.
In addition, it might be possible that the intensive contact with other cultures might have changed English people's personality in significant ways, particularly with respect to openness and creativity (Schwaba et al. Reference Schwaba, Luhmann, Denissen, Chung and Bleidorn2018), which could also partially explain changes in the English psychology at the time. In addition, it may as well be that people with more openness to new experiences were also the ones in the position of coming in contact with other cultures. Baumard states that most innovators were merchants, navigators, or lawyers, all professions that may entail higher levels of openness, creativity, and extroversion.
It is very difficult to parse out the influence of cultural interconnectedness from the influence of an affluent environment in modern societies, given that wealthy nations derive their affluence mostly from contacts with other cultures. England's richness is one example, which comes from constant warfare with other societies, colonialism, and international trade. However, it may be possible to test for the influence of cultural interconnectedness in comparison with the affluence mindset by comparing England with other colonial powers at the time in terms of cultural exchange with other societies. Baumard argues that evidence for the importance of affluence, despite cultural exchange, is that developing countries are still catching up with developed ones, even though they have easier access to innovations nowadays. The problem with this argument is that it ignores the continued level of external intervention that many of these countries have suffered, their economic agreements with other more powerful countries, and access to a variety of materials and expertise.
In-group cooperation
The contact with other cultures might have also contributed to the changes in English people's social behavior, thus partially influencing the civilizing process discussed by Elias (Reference Elias2000), one of the authors who inspired Baumard's theory. For example, the increased social trust and cooperativeness toward other in-group members can be the consequence of the contact with other cultures and a heightened sense of competition (Francois et al. Reference Francois, Fujiwara and van Ypersele2018). This may partially explain the apparent contradiction in Baumard's assertion that English people were more peaceful among themselves, which it clearly contrasts with the unmentioned violence perpetrated by the English and other European people in their colonies or in their wars. Another aspect of increased cooperation resulting from competition with out-groups is referred to by Elias (Reference Elias2000) as the “monopoly of physical violence,” the outsourcing of violence to specific spheres of social life, rendering the display of violence in daily life redundant or illegal. And even though English institutions could have been lenient toward violent crimes such as murder prior to the nineteenth century, it is not entirely impossible that the most violent individuals were either sent to the colonies or benefited from being employed in more violent jobs, thus also contributing to a greater feeling of social trust within the country.
The creation of more complex social identities, as illustrated by the ascension of bourgeois values and education, can also be the indirect product of external politics of England and increasing success in their colonial enterprises. Moreover, as Elias (Reference Elias2000) shows, certain aspects of the civilizing process might also be the product of increased social differentiation between the emerging social classes during the fall of feudalism. Finally, protectionist laws that sought to guarantee England's economic advantage over other countries, such as in the textile industry, could also have helped increase social competition that could have led to more individuals working toward innovative approaches.
Innovation as a social product
Innovations can be defined as incremental changes done to accumulated cultural products that successfully spread in a population (Henrich Reference Henrich, Shennan and O'Brien2009). In a sense, even when done by single individuals, innovations are the social product of collaboration with previous and current generations. It has been demonstrated that innovation can evolve in species exposed to new, changing environments (Sol et al. Reference Sol, Sayol, Ducatez and Lefebvre2016) and that partial connection between groups and increased population both lead to more innovative behavior in humans (Derex & Boyd Reference Derex and Boyd2016; Henrich Reference Henrich, Shennan and O'Brien2009). Thus, any hypothesis that claims that psychological changes can explain cultural shifts independently of these other factors should provide strong evidence for that.
England might have had only a small advantage from the start in comparison with other rich countries, and it might be possible that their initial success in dominating other cultures had provided the necessary conditions for the accelerated rate of innovations in the country. Conversely, it might also be that a combination of factors, including an “affluence mindset,” could have led to England's Industrial Revolution. Indeed, Baumard does not propose that this particular mindset is the only factor. However, he does not address alternative hypotheses regarding the influence of cultural interconnectedness and in-group cooperation on the rise of English innovations in the eighteenth century. His theory should be tested against other potential explanations within the cultural evolutionary theoretical framework such as those outlined above before it could be proven robust.
I appreciate Baumard's approach to explaining great patterns of cultural change through proximate causes on human behavior. However, I do not entirely agree with his main hypothesis that the change to an “affluence mindset” was a major factor influencing England's accelerated rate of innovation in the eighteenth century. In this commentary, I propose two alternative explanations for such cultural change. I focus on the influence of cultural interconnectedness and in-group cooperation on the changes in the psychology of English people and their innovative behavior. Finally, I will argue for a shift toward seeing innovation as a social product, instead of the product of isolated individuals.
Cultural interconnectedness
Cultural evolutionary models have demonstrated that cultural interconnectedness is important to generate innovations and promote the evolution of innovation-enhancing institutions (Derex & Boyd Reference Derex and Boyd2015; Reference Derex and Boyd2016; Henrich Reference Henrich, Shennan and O'Brien2009). Derex and Boyd (Reference Derex and Boyd2015; Reference Derex and Boyd2016), for example, showed that innovations are more common in groups of individuals than isolated individuals and that partially connected groups innovate more than isolated and fully connected groups. If innovation is a product of cultural interconnectedness, the reason for the increased rate of innovation in England might be simply that England was in the best position to benefit from intensive contact with other cultures: first, because of its long history of being a part of other empires and subject to successive invasions; and second, because it was one of the most successful empires in history (Jackson Reference Jackson2013). Therefore, it is likely that colonialism and the international trade provided the English with different raw materials, other technologies, or cultural products.
In addition, it might be possible that the intensive contact with other cultures might have changed English people's personality in significant ways, particularly with respect to openness and creativity (Schwaba et al. Reference Schwaba, Luhmann, Denissen, Chung and Bleidorn2018), which could also partially explain changes in the English psychology at the time. In addition, it may as well be that people with more openness to new experiences were also the ones in the position of coming in contact with other cultures. Baumard states that most innovators were merchants, navigators, or lawyers, all professions that may entail higher levels of openness, creativity, and extroversion.
It is very difficult to parse out the influence of cultural interconnectedness from the influence of an affluent environment in modern societies, given that wealthy nations derive their affluence mostly from contacts with other cultures. England's richness is one example, which comes from constant warfare with other societies, colonialism, and international trade. However, it may be possible to test for the influence of cultural interconnectedness in comparison with the affluence mindset by comparing England with other colonial powers at the time in terms of cultural exchange with other societies. Baumard argues that evidence for the importance of affluence, despite cultural exchange, is that developing countries are still catching up with developed ones, even though they have easier access to innovations nowadays. The problem with this argument is that it ignores the continued level of external intervention that many of these countries have suffered, their economic agreements with other more powerful countries, and access to a variety of materials and expertise.
In-group cooperation
The contact with other cultures might have also contributed to the changes in English people's social behavior, thus partially influencing the civilizing process discussed by Elias (Reference Elias2000), one of the authors who inspired Baumard's theory. For example, the increased social trust and cooperativeness toward other in-group members can be the consequence of the contact with other cultures and a heightened sense of competition (Francois et al. Reference Francois, Fujiwara and van Ypersele2018). This may partially explain the apparent contradiction in Baumard's assertion that English people were more peaceful among themselves, which it clearly contrasts with the unmentioned violence perpetrated by the English and other European people in their colonies or in their wars. Another aspect of increased cooperation resulting from competition with out-groups is referred to by Elias (Reference Elias2000) as the “monopoly of physical violence,” the outsourcing of violence to specific spheres of social life, rendering the display of violence in daily life redundant or illegal. And even though English institutions could have been lenient toward violent crimes such as murder prior to the nineteenth century, it is not entirely impossible that the most violent individuals were either sent to the colonies or benefited from being employed in more violent jobs, thus also contributing to a greater feeling of social trust within the country.
The creation of more complex social identities, as illustrated by the ascension of bourgeois values and education, can also be the indirect product of external politics of England and increasing success in their colonial enterprises. Moreover, as Elias (Reference Elias2000) shows, certain aspects of the civilizing process might also be the product of increased social differentiation between the emerging social classes during the fall of feudalism. Finally, protectionist laws that sought to guarantee England's economic advantage over other countries, such as in the textile industry, could also have helped increase social competition that could have led to more individuals working toward innovative approaches.
Innovation as a social product
Innovations can be defined as incremental changes done to accumulated cultural products that successfully spread in a population (Henrich Reference Henrich, Shennan and O'Brien2009). In a sense, even when done by single individuals, innovations are the social product of collaboration with previous and current generations. It has been demonstrated that innovation can evolve in species exposed to new, changing environments (Sol et al. Reference Sol, Sayol, Ducatez and Lefebvre2016) and that partial connection between groups and increased population both lead to more innovative behavior in humans (Derex & Boyd Reference Derex and Boyd2016; Henrich Reference Henrich, Shennan and O'Brien2009). Thus, any hypothesis that claims that psychological changes can explain cultural shifts independently of these other factors should provide strong evidence for that.
England might have had only a small advantage from the start in comparison with other rich countries, and it might be possible that their initial success in dominating other cultures had provided the necessary conditions for the accelerated rate of innovations in the country. Conversely, it might also be that a combination of factors, including an “affluence mindset,” could have led to England's Industrial Revolution. Indeed, Baumard does not propose that this particular mindset is the only factor. However, he does not address alternative hypotheses regarding the influence of cultural interconnectedness and in-group cooperation on the rise of English innovations in the eighteenth century. His theory should be tested against other potential explanations within the cultural evolutionary theoretical framework such as those outlined above before it could be proven robust.