Search

Copyright of Journal for Business, Economics & Ethics / Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts und Unternehmensethik is the property of Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In our recent article, "Where Does Cumulative Culture Begin? A Plea for a Sociologically Informed Perspective" (Haidle and Schlaudt in Biol Theory 15:161–174, 2020) we commented on a fundamental notion in current approaches to cultural evolution, the "zones of latent solutions" (henceforth ZLS), and proposed a modification of it, namely a social and dynamic interpretation of the latent solutions which were originally introduced within an individualistic framework and as static, genetically fixed entities. This modification seemed, and still seems, relevant to us and, in particular, more adequate for coping with the archaeological record. Bandini et al. (Biol Theory, 2021) rejected our proposition and deemed it unnecessary. In their critique, they focused on: (1) our reservations about an individualistic approach; (2) our objections to the presumption of fully naive individuals; and (3) our demand for an extended consideration of forms of social learning simpler than emulation and imitation. We will briefly reply to their critique in order to clarify some misunderstandings. However, the criticisms also show that we are at an impasse on certain crucial topics, such as the meaning of ZLS and the scope and nature of culture in general. Thus, we consider it necessary to make an additional effort to identify the conceptual roots which are at the very basis of the dissent with Bandini et al. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has been claimed that a unique feature of human culture is that it accumulates beneficial modifications over time. On the basis of a couple of methodological considerations, we here argue that, perhaps surprisingly, there is insufficient evidence for a proper test of this claim. And we indicate what further research would be needed to firmly establish the cumulativeness of human culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a commentary and the 1970 reprint of Alfred Sohn-Rethel's "The Social Reconsolidation of Capitalism," published anonymously in 1932. Topics covered include the scope of Sohn-Rethel's approach to fascism, the relation that Sohn-Rethel expresses between his political-economic work on fascism and his broader theoretical project, and the discussions and attacks that his reprint of the 1932 article has caused.

The type–token distinction and the notion of 'tokenization' are proposed as analytical tools that may help us understand better the emergence of numbers and mathematical thinking from the non-mathematical cultural practices of the Upper Palaeolithic such as painting, decorating portable objects, or making ornaments from beads, as described in recent studies in cognitive archaeology. While the type–token distinction has been a salient element in recent debates in the philosophy of mathematics, it seems not yet to have been registered in those areas of cognitive archaeology concerned with numbers—and yet it may help to identify the circumstances under which the conceptual potential of cultural artefacts develops. The concept of tokenization permits us to identify a plausible link between non-numerical cultural resources and the emergence of numerical thought patterns. This approach offers a way of appreciating the role of artefacts without raising the notoriously difficult question of their original 'meaning'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I propose to read the history of systems of units, and in particular the current reform of the International System of Units (SI), understood as a set of measuring norms, in the light of reflective equilibria. The idea is that the model of reflective equilibria actually applies to processes which can be empirically observed or studied. This can help us to understand the nature of normativity and to shed light on its relativity to, and dependence on, practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]