In modern evolutionary biology there is a core concept known as adaptationism (or functionalism). Adaptationism seeks to explain a trait’s existence by describing the adaptive function it serves.
In other words, adaptationism proposes that the most likely explanation for why a particular trait was conserved (i.e., persisted over time), is the one that best demonstrates why it would be adaptive — that is, why the trait serves to increase individual or group fitness. For example, it is hypothesized that dinosaurs first developed feathers for thermoregulation, and later some species developed more specialized feathers — such as those that enhanced gliding abilities. In this case, feathers served a primary adaptive function — to insulate the body; this and other, secondary functions (sexual signaling, gliding enhancement, etc.) helped ensure that the trait was preserved after it appeared.
Cultures, in many ways, are analogous to organisms — a fact that is illustrated well by Richard Dawkin’s concept of a meme, or a unit of cultural information that is analogous to a gene in biology. Due to these analogical similarities we can often develop an understanding of cultures and cultural phenomena by appealing to evolutionary principles.
An adaptationist view of cultural evolution holds that a cultural phenomenon is extremely unlikely to have been conserved if it was not advantageous to the population. The adaptationist view, when applied to culture, seeks to describe a cultural phenomenon in terms of its function or adaptive purpose. For example, some hypotheses explain the cultural phenomenon of religion through demonstrating why such a belief system could prove to increase the fitness (the group flourishing and persistence over time) of a culture — or, more precisely, the population which gives rise to the culture (see evolutionary psychology of religion).
[Note: Over time it is possible that successful cultural adaptations are encoded genetically through a culturally mediated selection processes. For example, certain forms of prosociality are socially enforced, which tends to increase the reproductive fitness of those who are predisposed to adhere to them.]
Those who want to do away with worn out cultural norms or create major socioeconomic changes should first seek to develop an adaptationist approach to revolution — that is, before they advocate for eliminating a targeted cultural institution they should seek to understand why it might have come into being, why it persisted, and then propose an alternative that will better serve its societal function/s —that is, if it is indeed found to still be performing important functions.
(Note: It is possible that a cultural institution has never served an important function — rather, that it is a spandrel, however, one must investigate to discover whether this is the case. It is also possible that a cultural institution may be an exaptation — initially developing as a byproduct or for a particular purpose, but finding later utilization for an altogether different purpose.)
The general principle or heuristic that prescribes the above approach is known as Chesterton’s Fence. This principle uses the analogy of a seemingly purposeless fence found on a road to illustrate why it is important to find out if there is a purpose for something before we do away with it. In this analogy it is possible the fence is serving an important purpose — such as, blocking a danger on the road; if we assume the fence is purposeless and hastily tear it down there may be negative consequences.
One prominent example of the above is the critical situation posed by dogmatic religions (and dogmatic ideologies in general). A cogent case can be made that many of these belief systems now constitute a real existential threat to our species — regardless of how adaptive they were at one point in history. It is likely, however, that religions still serve important adaptive functions in peoples’ lives, and in society.
Psychological research has revealed some of the primary adaptive functions of religion. Religion helps to build an individual’s social support network, it serves to provide a scaffolding for personal meaning creation, it provides practical wisdom and ethical guidance, and it functions in a terror management capacity to assuage death anxiety, epistemic uncertainty, and to connect the individual to something bigger than oneself.
If we are to supplant dogmatic religion we must promote rational philosophies of life that can also serve these functions. (For some examples see: secular Buddhism, Epicureanism, Stoicism, Liberationism.) Likewise with any other outdated cultural institution, an approach to revolution that is conscious of cultural adaptaptionism is much more likely to succeed than one that only seeks to destroy the existing order.