[From: Bruce Nevin (Fri 920419 13:48:06)]
I said (920616):
One of the problems of individual and community is that mammals and
probably other animals take their lead from their fellows in setting
some reference signals. Much of how we do things with words depends on
this. There is an interesting survey of primate research in a new book
by Carl Sagan and his wife Ann Drayan, _Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors_.
[quote from Sagan/Drayan book omitted here]
A social and political structure that is easily recognizable as
human-like, complete with palace intrigues and Marshall Dillon style
enforcement of lawn order, has evolved and is maintained among
chimpanzees without language as we know it. This is not to deny that we
do the same with language, and more elaborately by virtue of having
language. The point for me is that we use language for such purposes in
parallel with the essential function of language, which is error-free
transmission of information. Our use of language for social status,
political process, communication of affect, and so on is essentially
gestural, just like our use of facial expression, posture, and so on.
Bill (920617.0800) ignored the issues suggested here because he judged
the quotation from the book to be
an example of misapplied categories, or homocentrism. Obligations,
deference, respect, services to the community, and the idea of subordinates
demanding something of a leader (etc., etc.) are interpretations by a human
observer. To use such interpretations is to miss the opportunity to guess
what the actual controlled variables and means of control are. You could
speak exactly the same way of ants, but then the projection of human
qualities would be too obvious. The obverse of this objection is that using
such terms for human interactions is probably also to miss an opportunity
to see how control is working.
I suggest that the projection of our own imagined experience (with its
imagined behavioral outputs) onto the observed behavioral outputs of
others is an essential preliminary to scientific work. Appropriate
scientific method can assure us that hunches and proposals, however we
arrive at them, bear a valid relation to direct perceptions. It should
not be used to stifle informed speculation, without which we get few
hunches and proposals to test.
Imagine the following scene:
The Chief is sitting bolt upright, jaw set, staring confidently into
middle distance. The regalia on his head, shoulders and back gives
him an even more imposing aspect. Before him crouches a subordinate,
in a bow so deep that his gaze must be fixed on the few tufts of grass
directly before him. He may even kiss the Chief's feet. Calm and
assured, the Chief does not scowl at his nearly prostrate subordinate.
Instead, he reaches out and touches him on the shoulder or head. His
subordinate slowly rises, reassured. The Chief walks on, touching,
patting, hugging, occasionally kissing those he encounters. Many
reach out their amrs and beg for contact, however brief. Almost
all--from highest rank to lowest--are visibly buoyed by the Chief's
touch. Anxiety is relieved, perhaps even minor illnesses cured, by
the laying on of hands.
The players in this scene are human beings, perhaps in a jungle village,
perhaps in a medieval kingdom, perhaps in a meeting of a Mafia "family,"
perhaps even closer to home. Observing them, we imagine what the
experience would be like, for us to be acting like one player or another
in this scene. By the uniformitarian hypothesis that underwrites
anthropology and all the social sciences and indeed our most mundane
essay at everyday communication, we assume assumes") that the
perceptions for which we find ourselves controlling in imagination, were
we interacting with others as they are interacting together, are indeed
the same sorts of perceptions for which they are controlling as we
observe them. This is a principal means of determining how we might
apply The Test for Controlled Perception in an experimental situation.
The quote I provided was out of context, which was fair neither to Sagan
& Drayan or to you, Bill. Here it is again, with somewhat more context
provided.
The alpha male is sitting bolt upright, jaw set, staring confidently
into middle distance. The hair on his head, shoulders and back is
standing on end, which gives him an even more imposing aspect.
Before him crouches a subordinate, in a bow so deep that his gaze
must be fixed on the few tufts of grass directly before him.
If these were humans, his posture would be recognized as much more
than deference. This is abject submission. This is abasement.
This is groveling. The alpha's feet may, in fact, be kissed. The
supplicant could be a vanquished provincial chieftain at the foot of
the Chinese or Ottoman emperor, or a 10th-century Catholic priest
before the Bishop of Rome, or an awed ambassador of a tributary
people in the presence of Pharaoh.
Calm and assured, the alpha male does not scowl at his nearly
prostrate subordinate. Instead, he reaches out and touches him on
the shoulder or head. The lower-ranking male slowly rises,
reassured. Alpha ambles off, touching, patting, hugging,
occasionally kissing those he encounters. Many reach out their amrs
and beg for contact, however brief. Almost all--from highest rank
to lowest--are visibly buoyed by the King's touch. Anxiety is
relieved, perhaps even minor illnesses cured, by the laying on of
hands.
Regal touching, one after the other in a sea of outstretched hands,
seems familiar enough to us--reminiscent of, say, the President
striding down the central aisle of the House of Representatives just
before the State of the Union address, especially when he's riding
high in the polls.
<Omitted: Discussion of close genetic relation of chimpanzees and
humans, and of some apparently homologous aspects of chimpanzee
and human social life.>
The chimpanzee alpha male will intervene to prevent conflict--
especially between hotheaded young males, pumped up on testosterone,
or when aggression is directed at infants or juveniles. Sometimes a
withering glance will suffice. Sometimes the alpha will charge the
pair and force them apart. Generally he approaches with a swagger,
arms akimbo. It's hard not to see here the rudiments of gonvernment
administration of justice.
The perks of being an alpha male entail certain obligations. In
return fo deference and respect, for preferential sexual access to
ovulating females and for deluxe dining privileges, he must render
services to the community, both practical and symbolic. He adopts
an impressive demeanor, even something approaching pomp, in part
because his subordinates demand it of him. They crave reassurance.
They are natural followers. They have an irresistable need to be
led.
The anger of a high-ranking male is fearsome. He may charge,
intimidate, and tear branches from trees. He exaggerates his size
and fierceness and displays the weapons that he will bring to bear
if the adversary does not submit. These displays are used for
keeping more junior males in line. Displays may serve as a response
to a challenge, or just as a general reminder to the community at
large that here's someone not to be trifled with.
So something like law and order are maintained, and the status of
the leadership preserved, through the threat (and, if necessary, the
reality) of violence--but also through patronage delivered to
constituents, and throughsatisfying the widespread craving to have a
hero to admire, who can tell you what to do, especially when there's
a threat from outside the group.
Male chimps are obsessively motivated to work their way up the
dominance ladder. [In the discussion omitted earlier, they say that
as with humans this varies, some are ambitious, some content with
their lot.] This involves courage, fighting ability, often size,
and always real skill in ward-heeler politics. The higher his rank,
the fewer the attacks on him by other males and the more gratifying
instances of deference an submission. But the higher his rank, the
more he will be obliged to take pains to reassure subordinates.
The alpha male, merely by virtue of his exalted status, inspires
conspiracies to depose him. A lower-ranking male may challenge the
alpha by bluff, intimidation or real combat, as a step toward
reversing their relative status. Especially under crowded
conditions, females play a central role in encouraging and helping
to implement coups d'Etat. But the alpha male is often prepared
single-handedly to take on coalitions of three, four or five
opponents. Political assassination--that is, dominance combat in
which the loser dies--is rare.
Any given fight is likely to stimulate other fights among unrelated
or even unaffiliated parties. One combatant may poignantly appeal
for aid from passers-by, who may, in any case, be attacked for no
apparent reason. Everyone's hair stands on end. Perhaps
longstanding resentments flare. General mayhem often results.
Alliances are made and broken. Loyalties shift. There is bravery
and devotion, perfidy and betrayal. No dedication to liberty and
equality is evident in chimpanzee politics, but machinery is purring
to soften the more hardhearted tyrranies. The focus is on the
balance of power.
In this complex, fluid social life, great benefits accrue to those
skilled in discerning the interests, hopes, fears and feelings of
others. The alliance strategy is opportunistic. Today's allies may
be tomorrow's adversaries, and vice versa. The only constant is
ambition and fixity of purpose.
Males have special reasons to avoid permanent rivalries. In hunting
other animals and in patrols into enemy territory, they rely on one
another. Mutual mistrust would be dangerous. Also, they need
alliances to work their way up the promotion ladder or to maintain
themselves in power. So, while males are much more aggressive than
females, they also are much more highly motivated toward eventual
reconciliation.
In zoo after zoo, males--especially high-ranking males--exhibit a
degree of measured restraint under crowded conditions that would be
unthinkable if they were free. Captive chimps are much more likely
to share their food. Captivity somehow brings forth a more
democratic spirit. When jammed together, chimps make an extra
effort to get the social machinery to hum. In this remarkable
transformation, it is the females who are the peacemakers. When,
after a fight, two males are studiously ignoring one another as if
they were too proud to apologize or make up, it is often a female
who jollies them along and gets them interacting. She clears
blocked channels of communication.
At a large chimp colony in a zoo in the Netherlands, every adult
female was found to play a therapeutic role in communication and
mediation among the petulant, rank-conscious, grudge-holding males.
When real fights were about to break out and males began to arm
themselves with rocks, the females gently removed the weapons,
prying their fingers open. If the males rearmed themselves, the
females disarmed them again. In the resolution of disputes and the
avoidance of conflicts, females led the way
Chimpanzee females and their young have deep bonds of affection,
while the adolescent and adult males seem more often mesmerized by
rank and sex. The young revel in rough-and-tumble play together.
Occasionally chimps of either sex will endanger themselves to help
others, even those who are not close relatives. Male bonding on a
hunt or patrol into enemy territory is palpable. Clearly there are
opportunities for civil, affectionate, even altruistic behavior in
chimpanzee society.
Females are not born knowing how to be competent mothers; they must
be taught by example. The investment of time required of the mother
is substantial: The young are not weaned until they're 5 or 6 years
old, and they enter puberty around age 10. For much of the time
until weaning, they're unable to care for themselves. They're very
good, though, at clutching their mother's hair as they ride
upside-down on her belly and chest. So long as they allow the
infant to nurse whenever it wants, chimp mothers are usually
infertile and unattractive to males. Without the males constantly
hassling them for sex, they're able to spend much more time with the
kids.
Chimp mothers use corporal punishment very rarely. Infant males
learn the conventional modes of threat and coercion by closely
observing older males, and they soon attempt to intimidate females.
Before reaching adulthood, nearly every male has obtained submission
from nearly every female. The youngsters yearn to be apprentices
and acolytes of the older males, and are simultaneously nervous and
submissive and hopeful in their presence. They're looking for heros
to worship.
(From Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, _Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors_, Random
House, due out this fall. Excerpted in _Parade Magazine_ for June
7, 1992, issued with _The Boston Sunday Globe_.)
What perceptions might be being controlled here?
Bruce
bn@bbn.com