Author: Malcolm Scott Date: December 12, 2011 Introduction There have been different conceptions of the cultural

change among populations, and the origin of some conceptions can extend almost to the beginning of the 20th century. Only within the past decade has the basic exchange of ideas between people become an object of consideration. Despite literally hundreds of definitions of culture, a source of common ground about the nature of culture is that the use of two shared assumptions. The first assumption is that people are more likely to engage with people who share a greater number of the same cultural traits. The second assumption is that engagement between two people increases the number of attributes they share. Because this happens for multiple traits, the result is local convergence and global polarization in cultural traits (Axelrod 1997). However, despite this simple explanation for the divergence in cultures, the presence of immense cultural diversity is still problematic. It is not merely that cultural diversity continues to exist but that it can exist in stable forms over prolonged periods of time. While the cultural diversity helps explain the origin of cultural change from individual transactions, it does not incorporate barriers or channels for communication into the model. Axelrods model furthermore does not consider social interaction between multiple units simultaneously as compared to one active site (village or individual) in the model impacting another site. Given these conditions, it raises the question of the fragility of cultural diversity in cultural interactions in the model. Further examination will indicate that limitations in the cultural diversity model will cause some failures in the correlation between the model and actual cultural events.

The impact of media access and mass media is not clear in the original model, and its regard in later research will help indicate its significance. Nevertheless, the original model of cultural diversity, dissemination and polarization developed by Axelrod is a crucial instrument to understand the cultural interactions and associated political effects. Despite its limitations, the Axelrod cultural dissemination model has a simplicity and great magnitude in expected effects, and that renders the model fertile for many social phenomena.

Assumptions Three underlying principles for the model include agent-based modeling, a lack of central authority, and adaptive but not rational agents. The first principle of agent-based modeling is a means to have the processes under study directed at actors in the model. These processes were then subject to examination in order to track the emergent properties of cultural dissemination, and this would be the product of agents in the simulation interacting with each other. The additional principle of a lack of central authority is an unrealistic but useful tool to study cultural dissemination. While there have been many centralized authorities in different regions of the world such as Napoleon, Axelrod was focusing on culture emerging from social interaction at least in parallel if not prior to the existence of centralized authorities. The attempt of the model is to determine the capacity of cultural emergence without such powers present during socialization. The third principle is that agents adapt to their environments and follow rules for the distribution of influence. The agents in Axelrods model are adhering to

behavior based on rational calculation, calculated net utilities or consideration of the future. Within the model, specific cultural attributes are not deemed significant. To be more exact, the specific cultural content is not under emphasis. The cultural dissemination model focuses very specifically on the emergence and diffusion of culture. It would not matter whether or not the agents in model specifically practiced or did not practice dancing, vegetarianism, particular types of dress, conversation in Hausa, etc The cultural dissemination model uses individual attributes to describe a culture. The model describes cultures as a collection of cultural dimensions and is abstract about specific cultural items. There is a set of traits for each dimension. An example provided is if there are five different cultural dimensions, and each dimension has ten traits. A culture could be classified based on a combination of digits from the five dimensions, each trait out of ten for five dimensions. Two individuals are ascribed to belong to the same culture if their digit combinations are the same. Formula for number of cultural traits: KN K = number of cultural dimensions N= number of features per cultural dimension The model arranged for a geographic distribution of individual agents, and a simple example Axelrod used was a set of 100 sites on a ten by ten unit grid. The sites had the classification of homogenous villages due to the lack of movement incorporated into the model. These model sites were the agents and could only interact with immediate neighbors in the north, south, east and/or west. Most sites shared one dimension of five dimensions maximum with neighbors, producing cultural similarities of twenty percent.

A few sites shared two dimensions with neighbors, producing cultural similarities of forty percent. In the model, agents who are more similar to each other would interact with each and eventually become more similar to each other in the process. The estimated probability for interaction was expected to be proportional to the extent of cultural similarity held between two neighbors. The dynamics of the model occur in two steps. The first step is to select a site to be active and then select and neighboring site. The second step is that the sites interact based on probability equal to cultural similarity. During the interaction of the sites, there will be one dimension for which the active and neighboring sites differ, and the active site changes its trait to match that of its neighbor. Example: 1. 56456 2. 56378 1. 56356 2. 56378 When the active site changes traits, this ensures both interacting sites have equal chances for social influence despite different possessing different numbers of neighbors, depending on whether a site is inside the grid, along an edge or in a corner. Edge sites will have fewer neighbors than interior sites, and this dynamic adjusts for that.

Results Distinct cultural areas become evident after 20,000 events. These areas are connected sites with identical cultures. In the simulation, cultural boundaries were eliminated when these areas included four or five sites. The areas expanded by the point of 40,000 events. Within the Axelrod model, only four areas remained after 80,000 events in the model. One area disappeared after an additional 1,000 events. At that point,

the remaining events were stable. Neighboring sites with similarities will interact and become more similar to each other over time. As a result, cultural traits are shared over increasingly larger areas, and regions with exactly similar traits form. Eventually, sites are entirely similar or dissimilar, precluding further interaction. At the beginning of the model, the number of regions and the number of sites were the same, but there were only a few regions at the end of the model. Stable regions were those cultural areas with no similarities with other areas. Higher numbers of dimensional numbers increased the likelihood of complete cultural convergence because of increase likelihood of shared traits and interaction between sites. However, higher numbers of traits decreased cultural convergence. Unsurprisingly, larger regions had greater cultural convergence. Moderately sized regions had the greatest number of stable regions. When regions have sufficient similarity to be able to exchange traits, this can prolong interaction and formation of stable regions, permitting more cultural and regional boundaries to be degraded in the process. This model is extremely useful, but the results of the model suggest that there should be more polarization of cultural traits and far less cultural diversity; specifically, there should be less stable cultural diversity (Flache and Macy 2006). Cultural diversity should not be possible in the long-term, especially because little noise created during site interaction would be necessary to eliminate cultural diversity (Flache and Macy 2006). This suggests that there are additional dynamics or variables that the Axelrod cultural diversity model does not sufficiently incorporate. However, the Axelrod model does demonstrate how few conditions are needed for the formation of coherent cultures, and it does fit to explain coincidences in geography and cultural traits.

Interpretation/Applications The Axelrod cultural dissemination model does not completely track the realistic dynamics of culture, but it is useful to understand phenomena such as nationalism and civil war. The use of Axelrod cultural dissemination model would validate the use of the concept of the nation-state as both a government and a territory with cultural traits. While Axelrod noted that central powers impact cultural dissemination, his model demonstrates that cultural homogenization does not require central authorities for the process to occur. It would suggest that governments influencing cultural dissemination are merely reinforcing underlying social dynamics that already in place. Cultural dissemination models suggest that nationalism and related group identities are going to be relatively natural outcomes of the process of cultural convergence. In addition, the model is useful to explain the probability of civil wars. The Axelrod model found that regions with diverse cultural dimensions had a greater likelihood of convergence and that regions experience dissolutions of cultural boundaries as traits are shared. When shared cultural traits increases, this has the potential to increase higher probability for civil war (Selway 2010). When crosscutting social cleavages are introduced at lower levels of fractionalization, it is efficacious to reduce the probabilities associated with civil war (Selway 2010). The model corresponds to a certain extent with empirical data, although the impact of crosscutting cleavages declines with ethnic fractionalization and data measures were tenuous. Nevertheless, the Axelrod model provides insight into the demographic factors impacting civil war. Higher cultural diversity may not directly cause civil wars, but the demographic condition impact the

ability for cooperation for the pursuit of civil war. In theory, these simultaneous changes in cultural boundaries might also create the crosscutting social cleavages that may be seen in different societies. Axelrod is working off of a tradition of modeling genetics and social behaviors jointly by biologists, so it is not surprising that the Axelrod model has a parallel in the dynamics of genetic bottlenecks (Hawks et al. 2000). The dynamics of genetic bottlenecks in populations is a parallel to the increasing cultural distance between regions in the Axelrod model. For populations, the interconnectedness of the populations maintains gene flow and prevents increasing dissimilarity between different segments of the population. As in the Axelrod cultural model, sufficiently genetically similar organisms can interact to share more and more of their genetic traits and produce a convergence of genetic traits. If populations are separated through physical or geographic barriers, as are cultural zones in the Axelrod model separated through barriers of dissimilarity, the populations only exchange genetic traits within those divided populations. Gene flow, shared traits and also shared means of exchanging genetic material undergo impairment. Eventually, the populations become genetically dissimilar until they can no longer reproduce despite removal barriers. This is a very brief description of speciation. Likewise, cultural regions interact often initially on proximity and similarity, until the cultural regions become entirely dissimilar and unable to exchange cultural traits. This parallel should suggest that there might be geographic factor in cultural differentiation, and Axelrod did acknowledge geographic impact as a past theory of cultural differentiation.

The main point is that the Axelrod model will be useful and relevant for understanding the causes and impacts of cultural diversity, dissemination and convergence. This understanding of cultural dynamics permits understanding of the impact of culture on economics, geopolitics and history with relatively simple mechanisms. Because it is so abstract, it is useful for those ends without attempts to try to make judgments about different cultures in the process. The model then limits the need to try to deal with potentially arbitrary assessments of the value or impact of different cultures and practices. The Axelrod model is large enough to encompass some measures of the impact of specific cultures when necessary.

Extension When using the cultural dissemination model of Robert Axelrod, it is also clear that there is much more cultural diversity in the world than is expected in the cultural dissemination model (Flache and Macy 2006). Part of this effect is explainable. Once the model is adjusted to allow for multiple interactions between individuals as in a community compared to single-point interactions, cultural diversity becomes robust (Flache and Macy 2011). However, at the same time, media presence can also increase the heterogeneity in regimes, but this result was only found when agents interacted only with media (Peres and Fontanari 2011). Flache and Macy (2011) also raised the question of when regions moved between heterogeneity, homogeneity or anomie; their simulation also raised the strength of cultural and it is not clear how these boundaries might be dissolved with these different variables. However, it is possible to bring some of these questions together through a modified version of the Axelrod model.

The modified Axelrod model would have typical sites but be capable of social influence or single point interactions. Additional cultural dimensions and traits only impacted through mass media. This would mean that the agents or the sites in the simulation would have regularly changing cultural traits simultaneously. The media strength would be measured in its impact on 0 to three cultural traits; the mass media would add up to three traits in the hypothetical model. Based on data from the previous scenarios, some societies would be more homogenous if interpersonal in interaction or more heterogeneous if social in interaction (interacting with one other person compared interacting in groups at once). Heterogeneous patterns would prosper if media strength increased, and homogenous patterns would prosper if media strength decreased. This new model would probably permit both heterogeneity and manifestations of cultural convergence in different parts of the model. This model would also suggest how boundaries might be dissolved if regions become more heterogeneous, and forces for cultural convergence interact with forces enhancing heterogeneity. This revised model would also suggest how crosscutting cleavages would interact both with regional diversity and regional homogeneity, impacting the probabilities for civil war. It would also help explain the impact of media on improved social stability (Pal et al. 2011)

Summary The cultural diversity of model of Axelrod has its flaws for understanding actual cultural dynamics. Nevertheless, it is useful for understanding the basic forces driving cultural complexity. Even when the model is adjusted, its usefulness continues for tracking social change. Modified variations can become even more informative for

understanding cultural dynamics. However, the modified dissemination model suggested is based on a few variables, and others could be significant yet remain unaccounted. The mechanisms for cultural diffusion and exchange are still unclear and could thus impact cultural convergence or homogeneity. Social scientists and scholars addressing conflict studies should still not discard the basic framework too quickly.

Works Cited Axelrod, R. R. "The Dissemination of Culture: A Model with Local Convergence and Global Polarization." The Journal of Conflict Resolution 41.2 (1997): 203-26. Print. Flache, A. A. "Local Convergence and Global Diversity: From Interpersonal to Social Influence." The Journal of Conflict Resolution (2011) Print. Hawks, J. "Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution." Molecular Biology and Evolution 17.1 (2000): 2. Print. Pal, Sudeshra, Nabamita Dutta and Sanjukta Roy. Media Freedom, Socio-Political Stability and Investment. 2011. Print. Peres, L. L. R. "The Media Effect in Axelrod's Model Explained." Europhysics Letters 96.3 (2011): 38004. Print. Selway, J. S. "Cross-Cuttingness, Cleavage Structures and Civil War Onset." British Journal of Political Science 41.1 (2011): 111. Print.