CELC: Adding Cultural Evolution to ELC: How does my earlier theory of ELC1, ELC2, and ELC3 hold up?

This series of blog posts began as a set of observations about literary research on the novel A Confederacy of Dunces (Confederacy), by John Kennedy Toole, but I have extended it to include evolutionary literary criticism (ELC). When I began my work on ELC, the foundation of my approach was the theory of biological, genetic evolution through natural selection. I have recently begun to subscribe to the theory of cultural evolution and gene-culture coevolution (from Joseph Henrich, who follows the work of Robert Boyd and Peter Richerson). Metaphorically, I have dug a new theoretical basement, and I want to shift my ELC edifice from the old foundation to the new one. Will it fall over? Will it have to be rebuilt?

In my blog entry of July of 2025, I announced that I had begun shifting my thinking away from traditional evolutionary psychology and more toward the school of gene-culture coevolution. One question that arises is: Does this new focus alter my previous theory of evolutionary literary criticism? The short answer is: Not much.

I have in the past argued that there are three different versions of evolutionary literary criticism (ELC) (for example, in my blog entry of January of 2025). In short, the second and third types of ELC are already fairly compatible with this new framework of cultural evolution, and the first can be adjusted.

ELC1: To quote my January, 2025, blog entry, the first version of evolutionary literary criticism (ELC1), examines "elements of a literary work that relate directly to the reproductive fitness of the characters. That can relate to both their individual fitness (don't get eaten by the alligator) and group fitness (fight bravely in battle so that your group prevails over its opponents)."

The first half of ELC1 specifically deals with non-socially-constructed forms of biological fitness, like having children. Henrich's cultural evolution theory argues that the strongest force on genetic evolution of modern humans has been cultural evolution. Still, one cannot completely dismiss biological reproductive fitness in one's analysis of genetic evolution, so that aspect of behavior should not be completely eliminated from ELC1. This half of ELC1 can remain with some adjustments.

The second half of ELC1 deals with group fitness. I was using the multilevel selection theory of David Sloan Wilson to frame my understanding of group selection (Sober and Wilson, 1998). Henrich would argue that much of what drives group selection is not genetic evolution but cultural evolution. Still, Henrich's theory continues to focus on group mechanisms such as the role of altruistic punishers to enforce behavior by others in the group. What is different is that the behavior which is enforced does not need to be directly specified by genetics. It is controlled by cultural learning. It can be any set of social norms, rather than just prosocial, group-enhancing behavior. Different sets of cultural practices do come into competition with one another, but the intergroup competition is not solely driven by violent conflicts, such as warfare. See chapter ten of Henrich's book The Secret of our Success (citation below), for a discussion of the forms that intergroup competition can take.

ELC2: Again, to quote my January, 2025, blog entry, the second version of evolutionary literary criticism (ELC2), examines "the ways in which the literary work shows that storytelling itself is an adaptive behavior. This 'storytelling as adaptive' perspective relates to the philosophical framework of viewing the world as a social construct." This version of evolutionary literary criticism is already compatible with the theory of cultural evolution. Henrich might say that the behavior among humans which is ultimately adaptive is cultural learning. Storytelling is just a proximate mechanism for some forms of cultural learning.

ELC3: Finally, the third version of evolutionary literary criticism (ELC3), examines "ways in which valuing a storytelling tradition can signal membership in a social group, which benefits the reader's group identity. This version of evolutionary literary criticism sees the story as an object within an adaptive context." This version again is compatible with the theory of cultural evolution. The literary text is a vessel holding some of the collective knowledge of the social group. We treasure literature because humans have evolved to want to learn and preserve cultural information, even if that information does not seem to have a rational function or immediate purpose.

Ironically, the theory of cultural evolution from Boyd, Richerson, and Henrich is more compatible with my three versions of evolutionary literary criticism than the more traditional theories of evolutionary psychology. My theory is morphing into Cultural Evolutionary Literary Criticism. Goodbye ELC, hello CELC.

Bibliography

Henrich, Joseph. The Secret of our Success: How Culture is Driving Human Evolution, .... Princeton UP, 2015.

Leighton, H. Vernon. "Confederacy of Dunces and Evolutionary Literary Criticism." John Kennedy Toole Research. Posted January 1, 2025. URL: https://leighton-toole-research.blogspot.com/2025/01/

Leighton, H. Vernon. "Henrich's Secret of our Success, Cultural Evolution as a new foundation for evolutionary literary criticism." John Kennedy Toole Research. Posted July 1, 2025. URL: https://leighton-toole-research.blogspot.com/2025/07/

Sober, Elliott and David Sloan Wilson. Unto Others: the Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Harvard UP, 1998.