You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Academic psychology has taken a clear turn toward an evolutionary perspective. To be taken seriously psychological theory must be consistent with evolutionary biology. Although Bowlby was a Darwinian, widely quoted in this regard, it is rarely noted that evolutionary theory has itself evolved since his time. Following Freud, much contemporary attachment and psychoanalytic theory focuses on the individual caught between nature and culture. While Freud viewed neurosis as the inevitable consequence of conflict between our natural instinctual core and the oppressive requirements of civilization, contemporary attachment theorists often see other-than-secure attachment as the disruption of the natural by the social/familial (i.e., cultural) forces of the pathological. But what is culture if not nature?
Evolutionary theory is at its core a theory of context. A biological structure can only be understood in the context of its environments, past and present. Culture is our everchanging social environment. As in all environments, there are many organisms competing for resources. Evolution through natural selection is not a force determining the survival of any particular fittest individual or species. It is a process in which, in a given environment, some phenotypes are more likely to be reproduced. Adams's paper (this issue) is cited as an excellent example of contemporary evolutionary psychology.