Do Primates have culture?

The proper study of man is man.

-- Alexander Pope

(emphasis added)

I take it you also presume not god to scan?

Re: truth


We certainly can profit from such comparisons. The classic example is the study of the "disheveled gene" Dvl-1. The gene which appears to have an important role in social behavior is present in fruit flies ( Drosophilae), mice (Mus) as well as humans (Homo) and presumably it was present in the common ancestor to all three. Comparison requires that you cast as wide a net as possible


http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ethology/first_gene_for_social_behavior_i.htm

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/kennedy/publications/kcnews/july99.html

truth
Of course, the most famous instance of how anthropologists have gotten the culture picture wrong, with the help of mischievous "natives", is that of Margaret Mead "among" young women of Samoa.
As I understand it, the beginning anthropological field worker is very vunerable when s/he enters a relatively strange culture (they try to learn as much about it, of course, from reading what other anthropologists, travelers, missionaries and government records reveal before they jump into "the field situation"). But it seems to me that a field worker must have a strong sense of self (in the psychological sense) before entering a world of suspicious strangers who are inevitably going to find him or her socially very awkward (by their standards). Most people make allowances for this awkwardness, but they can't help being very amused by the gaffes and general clumsiness. The anthropologist has to be able to laugh at himself WITH THEM. After some time (after many trips to the region perhaps) the fieldworker acquires considerable knowledge of customs, language and ties of friendship. At that time they are less vulnerable to lies and ridicule. Nevertheless--about lies--it is sometimes very beneficial for the field project when the worker learns that s/he has been lied to. People lie rarely for reasons of mischief. I think it is mainly for reasons of shame, economic fears, and for gain (especially in gossiping about their enemies). When the worker learns that people have lied or exaggerated or minimized something, this can be very telling data. And workers are most likely to discover lies given that they live in the field site for such a long time, rarely less than a year or two.

truth
Aquiunk, point well taken. I was referring to social and cultural characteristics of a social group. I do not appreciate, the characterizations by sociobiologists of genetic determinants of social behavior. Too vacuous for my taste.

The main reason they do not tell the truth is that you (the researcher) are not an important person. You have not status in the community so there is consequences for not telling you the truth. That is why field work normally last a year and a half or more. Because it is going to take some time to integrate into the community and build up the network od reciprocal social obligations that give lying some consequences.

Re: truth



Much too vacuous, but there is a link between our biology and out behavior and it must be explored. But neither the sociobiologists or the evolutionary psychologist are on the right track.

truth
And that is a good reason, Ackuiunk, for the field worker not to begin asking important questions at the beginning. THey usually spend the first part of the field project gaining background information, language skills, rapport and trust, field assisants, etc. At least this is what I'm told. Sometimes, more in the past than in the present, anthropologists have had the prestige and power of national governments to "authorize" their inquisitive behaviors. Now, because of so many rebellions against colonial rule, the field worker is more on his or own. For this reason, more and more anthropological students are choosing to do their dissertation research among groups in the United States.
But, regarding your comment, I've heard that many field informants are more willing to tell certain kinds of things to outsiders, people who have no political axe to grind in the community and who will someday leave and take the information with them. Once an anthropologist becomes very integrated into the community, sometimes by marriage or god parenthood (compadrazgo in Mexico, for example), he automatically acquires the enemies of his relatives and friends.

It depends on how you integrate your self into the community. I had a friend who was doing research on womens issues in west Africa and after several field seasons she had made very little progress. She took several years off, got married and had a child. When she returned to the field she took her young child with her (mostly for financial reasons) and suddenly found that people were taking her seriously and talking to her. It turned out it was the presence of her child that did the trick. Among the people she was working with an unmarried woman with no children was still considered an adolescent, and not to be taken seriously. When she returned, married and with a child, she was, in their eyes, an adult, and someone serious subjects could be discussed with.

I must say, this has been a very interesting thread! Thank you everyone.

Set - do you really believe that Pope quote is correct?

Re: truth


Ah? I am interested in both fields - with several grains of salt - but tell me - what do you think is the "right track"? In as much detail as you can bear, with links, if possible!!!!!! (pretty please? Only if you want to, of course...)

Not necessarily, Boss . . . i generally avoid using quotes in place of thought, i refer to them when they underline something which i wish to and will express for myself.

In this case, it was just a summarization of what JLN had written, sort of . . .

Oh, if you mean am i correct in attributing it to Pope, i had thought so, but decided to go on-line to assure myself. I saw it casually attributed to Francis Bacon, but if you google Francis Bacon and "The proper study of man . . ." you'll get a line from a letter he wrote--the beginning of one sentence of which has that wording--and in which he considers the topic of how does one know what one knows. I did find a direct attribution of that to Alexander Pope, which is what i had thought. If it's wrong, it won't cause me any heartache . . .


And i would like as well to thank all of the participants of this fascinating thread . . .

I found this at "brainyquotes.com," which is actually the language i had remembered, but when first i quoted it here, i decided to go with what i found initially on line:

The proper study of Mankind is Man.

Oh yes, I know - from Essay on Man - I meant do you believe the quote to be the truth?

Well my first response covered that--i take the middle ground here. Certainly Pope's point in well taken, but ought not, perhaps, have a tone of finality. The very cogent point was made about finding the slight divergences which result in such obviously dissimilar creatures as man and ape. That notion appeals to me, as i have done a rather opposite method on reading of history and culture. Finding the differences there can be a guide to what might be truly universal human nature.

So, i applaud what is now known as the multi-disciplinary method. I also recognize that the narrowly focused specialist also finds much that others working with many more considerations might well miss. A combination of all legitimate methods of observation, recording and reporting seems to be the wisest approach to understanding anything human--especially given a human penchant for elaborating and ramifying for elaboration's sake. Whether student or subject, the human delights in variety.

There are similarities between us and roaches too, JL. When people study primates to study humans, they seem to be trying to study human psychology inderectly through apes. But so much of psychology has to do with culture, and ape culture is so different from human culture, I don't see how you could gather any data on that. As for information on life in general, which is the other part of humanity, we could just as well learn that from roaches, who are, after all, as alive as we are. I mean, name one thing that we can learn about us from an ape that we can't learn from a human.

truth
Rufio, you're not disagreeing with me. I think that if we want to study humanity in its purely biological dimension, we can do useful comparisons with any other living form (roaches included). If we want to study humanity in its purely higher primate dimension, we can do useful comparisons with other higher primates, and the same can be done with primates of "lower" sorts, then vertebrates, etc. etc.. But if we want to study humanity in its purely human dimension, we should examine ourselves most intensively as cultural beings.

truth
I thought Pope said "The proper study for man is islands."

Re: truth


You might start with this very diverse collection of articles that emphasize the biological aspects of behavior. Keep in mind there is no direct link between behavior which is culturally informed and genes which provide a context.

Language

National library of Medicine

Molecular Biology
http://www.evolutionpages.com/FOXP2_language.htm

Wellcome trust
http://www.well.ox.ac.uk/~simon/FOXP2/index.shtml

Collection of diverse views on FOXP2
http://www.foxp2.info/

Social Behavior
New York Times
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ethology/first_gene_for_social_behavior_i.htm

Vanderbilt U.
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/kennedy/publications/kcnews/july99.html

Autism
http://www.vh.org/pediatric/provider/psychiatry/autism/