necessary to invoke group selection to explain these behaviors.Quite the
opposite:progress in primatological studies of social behavior boomed
after the selfish gene revolution in biological theory,which showed why
group selection almost never works (Williams 1966; Wilson 1975;
Dawkins 1976).Unfortunately,this sort of methodological individualism,
which views group-level effects as emergent phenomena arising from
selfish interactions among individuals,has never become very popular in
cultural anthropology or musicology.This has created a persistent
problem: the fact that music is made in groups is almost always
interpreted as meaning that it is made for groups,and that this putative
group-level function is most important both biologically and culturally.
The trouble with evolution theories that invoke group-level functions
is that they usually end up explaining music through group selection,
explicitly or implicitly.For example,group production of music is said to
result in a “group-bonding”effect,which supposedly facilitates cooper-
ation and mutual understanding (Richman 1987;Freeman 1995),which
in turn supposedly confers an advantage over other groups with less
effective group musical behavior.Other theorists view music as a means
for a group to remember and perpetuate its shared values and knowl-
edge (e.g.,Farnsworth 1969;Nettl 1983;Sloboda 1985),or for it to coor-
dinate rhythmic work (which,unfortunately for the theory,is almost
absent among hunter-gatherers).Even the sociobiologist E.O.Wilson
(1975) fell into positing a group function for music.
Group selection models are not illogical or impossible as theoretical
possibilities (see Boyd and Richerson 1990;Miller 1994;Wilson and
Sober 1994;Wilson 1997).However,theorists commonly make two errors
when invoking group selection in specific situations.The first error is
ideological:group selection is often favored because it is thought to be
a kinder,gentler,more cooperative,more humane form of evolution
than individual level selection,more suited to the production of positive,
enjoyable adaptations such as language,art,and music.But like all selec-
tion,it depends on competition,with some groups winning and some
losing.Biologist George Williams observed that group competition
replaces the logic of murder with the logic of genocide.Not a great moral
improvement.Group selection models of music evolution are not just
stories of warm,cuddly bonding within a group;they must also be stories
of those warm,cuddly groups out-competing and exterminating other
groups that do not spend so much time dancing around their campfires.
The second common error about group selection is failing to consider
free riding:ways that individuals could enjoy group benefits without
paying individual costs.If this is possible,selfish mutants can invade
cooperating groups,eroding the power of group selection and the utility
of group-selected adaptation.Suppose an ancestral group evolves a351 Evolution of Human Music through Sexual Selection