Adaptation and the Biocultural Paradigm in Medical Anthropology: A Critical Review

Abstract

Singer (1989a) recently critiqued biocultural studies in medical anthropology and concluded that adaptation was a virtually useless concept since it could not incorporate the role of social relations in explaining health‐related behavior. However, as I point out here, Singer's objections to biocultural research and the concept of adaptation in particular are founded on a misinterpretation of biocultural studies and need not lead to their dismissal. Instead, evolutionary explanations can provide a prehistorical as well as a historical perspective, and adaptation can reflect the dynamic relationship between the environment, individuals, and communities, when the environment is more broadly defined and more precisely specified. I argue that adaptation is an active process that engages individuals and groups in the struggle for their health; as such it is a process of compromise, not perfection. What is adaptive behavior for one group can easily result in changes in the adaptability of other groups or individuals. Biocultural studies should not be seen as deterministic or static; instead, they make an important contribution to the pluralism of theoretical approaches in medical anthropology.