Hi Tom,
I always disliked strawman arguments :wry:. I think what really bugged me was that he was using such outdated models of Anthropology and History. If he wanted to do some type of cultural genetics, he would have been better to go back to Durkheim, but he didn't <sigh>.
I would also say that the article overlooks all of the debates in the 1970's and 1980's between Anthropology and History, as well as the entire tradition of ethnohistory. It may be an accurate reflection of current "thinking" in he strategic culture debates but, if so, then God help anyone basing policy on them!
I'm torn on this one, Tom. I tend to dislike simplistic presentations of complex problems and yet, at the same time, I do like parsimonious presentations that have both predictive and postdictive value. I agree that a "black - white" dichotomy is silly (except in the negative :D) but, occasionally, we actually do get models that are simple and, more importantly, work well.
There actually do appear to be some perceptions and processes that are, if not "hardwired" then certainly massively predisposed towards, within the human species - Turner's Rites of Passage model is one example, and Abbott's professionalization model seems to be another. One interesting property shared by both of these is that they are emergent properties models (i.e. processual models) that only operate in fairly clear environmental situations.
I would have preferred to see a model of "strategic culture" that was of this type rather than one based on outdated Anthropology and History.
Marc