The Evolution of Technicity: Whence Creativity and Innovation?

Abstract

This paper introduces the concept of ‘technicity’, a\nterm borrowed from philosophy but recast in an\nDarwinian mould. Firstly, however, the presumption\nthat language is THE unique and pre-eminent\nhuman trait is put to the adaptationist test. Evidence\nfrom palaeontology, primate studies and\nevolutionary psychology is brought together to\n(tentatively) suggest that language (speech) has a\ndeep evolutionary past and that all members of the\ngenus Homo possessed speech in some form. The\nsecond section marshals evidence that suggests our\nspecies possesses a new ‘making things’\nadaptation. This adaptation appears to be the basis\nfor the speciation event that defines behaviourally\nmodern humans: our species. This is the capability\nfor which the term ‘technicity’ is appropriated. The\nargument for splitting off language from technicity\nuses the concept of the extended phenotype.\nTechnicity might best be characterised by a creative\ncapacity to:\na) deconstruct and reconstruct nature, and\nb) communicate by drawing.\nThe notion is floated that the newly evolved\nadaptation discretely insinuated itself into extant\nhuman culture; followed by brief consideration of the\nrole of drawing, in the form of writing, on the\nprecision and power of linguistic expression. It is\nsuggested that technicity might usefully be\nconsidered the source of our intellect and language\nits whetstone. If further studies support the technicity\nhypothesis then reappraisal of conceptual\nframework underpinning the educational curriculum\nmight be of benefit: a technology of language rather\nthan the language of technology.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.