According to Frans de Waal, the essence of culture is the “nongenetic spreading of habits and information” (30). Therefore, according to this definition, animals have culture just as humans do. Basically, de Waal says, culture is a way of life, a way of survival based on the passing on of knowledge and the process of finding a sense of place within a community.
So, this is crazy, right? A whole new ball game? To assert that animals share this mysterious notion of culture, one for which we have spent all semester (and others, their whole lives) pursuing a definition… are we essentially throwing all that away to say that culture is merely this simple concept of social learning shared by everyone from chimps to bowerbirds?
Actually, no. This idea of animal culture is not a separate concept; it is wholly interrelated to the eternal struggle of defining our own culture because we are so wrapped up in culture itself, “we are unable to take off our cultural lenses, and hence can only guess at how the world would look without them. That is why we cannot discuss animal culture without seriously reflecting on our own culture and the possible blind spots it creates” (9)
Therefore, in a way, de Waal’s opinions draw it all together, all the notions of culture, cultural pluralism and culture wars and the pursuit of sweetness and light. “Behind the ongoing culture wars, the debate is about nothing less than humanity’s place in the cosmos” (25), says de Waal, and thus, if what he’s saying is true, this place is much more basic than we may have thought. Whether the conviction that we share the roots of culture with animals fails to fulfill the so-called need for confirmation of “human uniqueness” (4) is up to us, as readers (as humans!), to decide. If our identity as humans is based upon the notion that possessing culture separates us from animals, are we then lost, floating aimlessly through the cosmos if we lose this distinction? Or are we in fact more rooted than ever?
“What if our artistic impulse is ancient, antedating modern humanity, and perhaps even our species? Isn’t it possible that our basic distinctions in art, our musical scales, and our preference for symmetrical compositions, go deeper than culture, and relate to basic features of our perceptual systems?” (152)
Relating back to our previous discussions on culture: Pluralism says that there are no transcendent truths between cultures, and social constructionism (which Howard Belsey embodies) says there is no transcendent truth at all. Bloom’s cultural conservatism asserts that transcendent truths are the essence of culture, and yet he strongly opposes and attacks the anthropological (Benedict) take on culture.
In a way, de Waal seems to do the impossible—bringing the seemingly disparate core ideas of Benedict and Bloom together—he is suggesting an anthropological/scientific notion of transcendent truth that brings together not only multiple cultures but also multiple species. The culture of all living things: learning from each other and searching for a place to fit into the world.
Is this what culture really is?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"Therefore, in a way, de Waal’s opinions draw it all together, all the notions of culture, cultural pluralism and culture wars and the pursuit of sweetness and light."
I have a feeling that Arnold would not be terribly happy to have the "nongenetic spreading of habits and information," or monkeys seasoning sweet potatoes in salt water, equated with the study of perfection. Arnoldian Culture is much more concerned with an individual pursuit as well, whereas de Waal is discussing group habits (not a state of harmonious perfection).
I like de Waal's definition of culture, "Culture is a way of life shared by the members of one group but not necessarily with the members of other groups of the same species. It covers the knowledge, habits, and skills, including underlying tendencies and preferences, derived from exposure to and learning from others." (31)
Culture should be a broader definition and not so limited as we have seen other definitions of it to be. The culture that Bloom feels necessary to obtain in universities should be defined more as high culture, which I believe is a narrow and specific definition. High culture to me is the study of classical literature, art masterpieces, Beethoven, etc. If you are not familiar with these works, it does not mean you don't have culture. It just means that you're not exposed to that higher level of culture.
Response to erin:
True, but the fact that animals have such group habits, habits that are separate from their inherited qualities/instincts, proves the existence of communication and cooperation among them--two things that I believe are necessary for the development of human culture. I think de Waal is trying to say that what defines animal culture is at the base, or is the "essence," (30) of human culture, and that humans have come to "confuse the knives and forks of the process with its essence" (31).
Yeah, I dunno. I don't think I really buy it. I think de Waal kind of gets away with some statements that he makes. For example, he says that a type of bowerbird uses leaves and berries and flowers to make its nest (sure), but he conclude the paragraph with this sentence, "it has been noted that bower decorations differ in color and arrangement from region to region, which suggests culturally transmitted styles"(151). Well, this sounds like a neat little observation, but to be honest, what about the availability of these said plants that are used as nests. I mean, there are different colored preying mantises in different parts of the world, do you think they have different cultures too? No, they probably eat bugs just the same. Is there such a thing as "animal culture"? If he says so, he's the researcher. But I don't buy it.
Also, I enjoyed his mention of the idea that art is simply a technique for males to pick up females. Now I'd buy that!(kidding)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPbWJPsBPdA
I actually found the bowerbird example to be fascinating. Birds that make nests that are like art…you can’t be serious! I went online and found an interesting YouTube video that describes the process and shows a bower. The stylistic differences that de Waal talks about are related to choice and aesthetic preference, not just the availability of certain flowers (though obviously that’s an element of it).
The video says “bowerbirds can choose.” The narrator, who isn’t trying to argue that animals have culture, describes the process like the bird is an interior designer. Though I don’t think this proves that animals have culture by any means, it is as unnerving to see this bird’s house as it is to see chimps mimicking human behavior. The likeness is impossible to deny and the proposition of animal cultures is fascinating.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SOUZ8eGYLIY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q5RrORtDZuQ
I also went onto youtube to find some pertinent informaiton. Toward the end of class, we began to discuss how unsettling it can be to see animals behaving in such incredibly human ways and that this similarity is a source for some of the anxiety that surrounds de Waals literature. In the first video, a human child is shown interacting with a chimpanzee child. Both exhibit similar desire to interact and curiosities about the other. The second video shows Koko, one of the most famous signing apes, meeting Mr. Rogers. Though somewhat goofy, the very opening interaction is what I find remarkable. Koko begins to ask questions about Mr. rogers attire, exploring it with her mouth and hands. The desire to learn and understand is one of the many attributes that humans feel so protective of and seeing it displayed in an ape is both mildly unsettling and supportive of de Waals claims that animals may have the capabilities required to develop their own cultures. If an ape in a two minute interview displays these desires to understand, what would stop it from learning and drawing a basic conclusion? An ability to comprehend and share understandings is one of the ways social learning is achieved and culture is cultivated. Though these videos are short and somewhat odd, I think that they provide interesting evidence for our class discussions.
This thread raises a question: Does it matter if we say that animals have the potential for culture (which is what Cliff says above) but haven't actually realized that potential?
Of course, this all raises the question of where you draw the line between culture/not-culture.
I'm also trying to ponder whether Allan Bloom would consider YouTube legitimate evidence.
Post a Comment