Animal Culture

[RedSonRising]

I have recently been studying social behaviors of various apes. In Chimpanzee and Baboon cultures, many individual lower-ranking individuals will form a coalition and participate in a form of coup. Now, they certainly don't establish a proletarian ape society, but it made me wonder what strains of egalitarianism are seen in different animal social groups. Does anyone have any evidence of equality and cooperation in specific species? Ants come to mind...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Does anyone have any evidence of equality and cooperation in specific species? Ants come to mind...

I think ants are better thought of as super-organisms rather than associations of individual organisms. Something as relatively simple as an ant can hardly be said to have a will of it's own.

[piet11111]

fish ?

i do not recall them having any hierarchy but then again its not in my field of interests.

[jake williams]

fish ?

i do not recall them having any hierarchy but then again its not in my field of interests.
I am barely resisting the urge to make a horrible pun about fish and their "schools".

[Yazman]

Animals do not have culture. Culture doesn't just describe simply learned behaviour or social grouping and trends.

Culture is unique to humans as of this moment (if we meet intelligent extraterrestrials then it won't be unique to us) because of a few main traits that make our behaviour cultural. We make use of symbolism and abstract concepts; we create complex tools and improve on them constantly and consistently; we develop organisations and institutions - these things together are important parts of what we describe as culture and are only expressed in their entirety by humans.

I think to a certain extent you may be anthropomorphising here.

[Picky Bugger]

http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2003/07/0709_030709_socialanimals_2.html

Decent article about the evolution of cooperation between certain animals namely crows. Quite interesting as it points to specific cases of cooperation but I think any form of egalitarianism is unlikely to be present in the vast majority of species.

[piet11111]

I am barely resisting the urge to make a horrible pun about fish and their "schools".

damn you now i want to know what you wanted to say

[RedSonRising]

Animals do not have culture. Culture doesn't just describe simply learned behaviour or social grouping and trends.

Culture is unique to humans as of this moment (if we meet intelligent extraterrestrials then it won't be unique to us) because of a few main traits that make our behaviour cultural. We make use of symbolism and abstract concepts; we create complex tools and improve on them constantly and consistently; we develop organisations and institutions - these things together are important parts of what we describe as culture and are only expressed in their entirety by humans.

I think to a certain extent you may be anthropomorphising here.

Well according to my anthropology professor and his documentary, the different tools different groups use to extract food and whatnot are distinct to many individual family groups within such a species; one chimp may crack nuts open differently than one in a similar environment, and these methods are learned and carried down by their offspring. I agree culture has more meanings and is something more fully explored by humans, but by the scientific expansions of the definition which I witnessed, it applies to certain animals.

[jake williams]

damn you now i want to know what you wanted to say
It's about fish travelling in "schools" and having a great education system. There's a reason I didn't say it.

[Yazman]

Well according to my anthropology professor and his documentary, the different tools different groups use to extract food and whatnot are distinct to many individual family groups within such a species; one chimp may crack nuts open differently than one in a similar environment, and these methods are learned and carried down by their offspring. I agree culture has more meanings and is something more fully explored by humans, but by the scientific expansions of the definition which I witnessed, it applies to certain animals.

If you read what I posted tool manufacture and usage by itself is not enough to and does not constitute culture. For it to be cultural behaviour it must also be accompanied by other things like the development of institutions and organisations (in the abstract sense; a simple hierarchy, pack behaviour as in dogs, etc does not qualify. This means more abstract things like government, religion, etc) and symbolism and abstract concepts. Apes and certain species of crows do manufacture primitive tools and occasionally they are unique but it doesn't constitute cultural behaviour as none of the other accompanying features of culture are present in any of those species or groups. This is fairly basic knowledge anthropologically speaking.

To re-iterate: Given current evidence we could only define animals as having culture if we defined culture as learned behaviour, but culture is a lot more than that and from what we know culture generally requires sapience.

[RedSonRising]

k Ill just tell me professor he's wrong.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

k Ill just tell me professor he's wrong.

I don't recall you ever mentioning that your professor thinks that tool-making alone is evidence of culture.

[Yazman]

k Ill just tell me professor he's wrong.

Your professor was describing how chimps display the ability to learn behaviour; nothing you mentioned describes or implies anything in regards to culture.

[Lynx]

Culture: a demonstrable attitude expressed by a group or individual?

[Yazman]

Culture: a demonstrable attitude expressed by a group or individual?

I believe I already described the basic features of culture in a post above.

[Lynx]

I believe I already described the basic features of culture in a post above.
I believe what you have described is society. How we see ourselves versus how others see us. I believe only the latter perspective is an example of culture.

[Yazman]

I believe what you have described is society. How we see ourselves versus how others see us. I believe only the latter perspective is an example of culture.

This is an incorrect assessment. What I described up there as being the requirements of something to be assessed as culture are generally accepted in archaeology.

[Lynx]

This is an incorrect assessment. What I described up there as being the requirements of something to be assessed as culture are generally accepted in archaeology.
Then culture is a distinction that can only be determined by archaeologists or from archaeological evidence?
This sounds like an attempt to impose a particular definition on a word that has not had such restrictions in the past. Without observers, culture doesn't exist. With observers, distinctions between groups are often described as cultural, for lack of a more specific reason, or for the purpose of merging various reasons into one generalized term.

[Yazman]

Then culture is a distinction that can only be determined by archaeologists or from archaeological evidence?
This sounds like an attempt to impose a particular definition on a word that has not had such restrictions in the past.

Scientifically speaking, animals have never considered to have culture because the criteria I listed are commonly held across the disciplines that study culture as being necessary to define it.


Without observers, culture doesn't exist. With observers, distinctions between groups are often described as cultural, for lack of a more specific reason, or for the purpose of merging various reasons into one generalized term.

Culture isn't a philosophical concept. Its a term that describes patterns and behaviours that have to this day only been observed in humans. It is a very specific term and it is a scientific one.

That you might think of it in philosophical terms is entertaining but thats all it is. Culture isn't simply a "distinction between groups" nor is it ever reduced to such a simple level by those who study it. You might hypothesize this but again, the study of culture is that of the behavioural sciences, primarily anthropology (of which archaeology is one of the most prominent branches). There really isn't a need for me to go into this in any sort of depth because it is a simple fact.

If you require academic sources for this definition I can give you plenty. Given that you seem to think I just randomly pulled a definition out of my ass, I think that this might end up being necessary, however anybody who has taken up even the most basic level of study in any of the disciplines across the behavioural sciences should already know that this is what constitutes culture.

[Lynx]

I am not in need of academic sources, but rather the criteria by which culture is determined scientifically.

Culture was and remains a philosophical concept, among other historical uses of the word.

[Black Sheep]

I think ants are better thought of as super-organisms rather than associations of individual organisms. Something as relatively simple as an ant can hardly be said to have a will of it's own.

That is fascinating and somehow difficult to grasp.

A super organism with its parts not physically attached to one another but 'controlled' by the central processor of the organism.
Like the hand of adams family, imagine if you could have one.:rolleyes:

[Yazman]

As far as the study of culture is concerned, how philosophers view it is mostly irrelevant to me. I am not discounting the relevance or importance of philosophy but when having to choose between relying on a philosopher's view and the facts arrived at by scientific study I will always choose the science.

Whether culture is explored in philosophy has little bearing on how scientists define and study it. It isn't relevant here. Not to mention that this is Sciences & Environment as such the scientific view will prevail here. If you want to debate the existence of culture or how it applies then go make a thread in Philosophy. I'm not going to attribute much if anything to unfalsifiable philosophy when discussing something that is well-known as a part of multiple scientific disciplines.



I am not in need of academic sources, but rather the criteria by which culture is determined scientifically.

??? I don't know where you propose to get scientific criteria then if you don't want academic sources. Thats where the criteria comes from, definitions and consensus arrive in the discourse itself. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say "I want the scientific definition but I don't want to get it from the discourse." Unless of course you just want a link to britannica or wikipedia, or some random discovery site or something.

[Lynx]

The philosophical aspect is of little interest to me either. Please expand upon your earlier post:

Culture is unique to humans as of this moment (if we meet intelligent extraterrestrials then it won't be unique to us) because of a few main traits that make our behaviour cultural. We make use of symbolism and abstract concepts; we create complex tools and improve on them constantly and consistently; we develop organisations and institutions - these things together are important parts of what we describe as culture and are only expressed in their entirety by humans.

[Yazman]

To give you a basic rundown in case you haven't really studied behavioural sciences before, one of the most cited definitions of culture that is still held today is that of Edward Tylor who defined it as,"that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and other capabilities acquired by man as a member of society." Building on that Russel Tuttle backed this up with his statement that one of the most important parts of culture is, "symbols and symbolically mediated ideas, values, and beliefs."
Culture is most often defined as combination of mentalistic and behavioural aspects; sometimes with a heavier leaning towards one or the other. Clifford Geertz' view of culture leans toward the mentalistic aspects, focusing fairly heavily on symbolism and abstract concepts and how they give meaning to our lives, socially and psychologically. He also describes human behaviour as cultural (as opposed to the behaviour of non-humans which is not), in large part because of symbolic actions. If you look at how Franz Boas often described it (and he was usually a bit more vague about it), even he noted that abstract organisations and symbolic thought and their expression practically, like the development of language for example, are very important features of describing behaviour as cultural. For a group to be considered as displaying cultural behaviour it has to show the more mentalistic aspects and their translation into social and psychological reality, as well as the more physical aspects like the creation of tools, continual improvement upon then constantly and consistently, and the ability to transmit the newly gained knowledge to other members of the group. Aspects of ALL these have to be shown in order for behaviour to be cultural; It can't really be accurately described as culture if you're just talking about learned behaviour because culture includes a whole range of psychological and symbolic aspects, and these can sometimes be linked to the biological advances shown in our genus (homo) as we developed (but not all of them all the time).

[Lynx]

Ok, this is better.
1. Would the requirement for tool-making preclude dolphins from having a culture?
2. Would it preclude dolphins from developing a language and/or using mental symbolism?

3. If I talk about 'gang culture' or 'corporate culture' am I making a scientific distinction?
4. When certain behaviors are defined as being cultural, what additional insight(s) is gained from this?

[Lynx]

??? I don't know where you propose to get scientific criteria then if you don't want academic sources. Thats where the criteria comes from, definitions and consensus arrive in the discourse itself. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say "I want the scientific definition but I don't want to get it from the discourse." Unless of course you just want a link to britannica or wikipedia, or some random discovery site or something.
I read the Wikipedia article on culture as background. You are drawing upon academic sources to make your arguments, are you not? There's a limit to how much time I can devote to exploring a subject in detail.

[Yazman]

You are drawing upon academic sources to make your arguments, are you not?

Of course, its my field of study. If you want the references to the sources I'm citing from, I'll provide them for you.


1. Would the requirement for tool-making preclude dolphins from having a culture?
2. Would it preclude dolphins from developing a language and/or using mental symbolism?

3. If I talk about 'gang culture' or 'corporate culture' am I making a scientific distinction?
4. When certain behaviors are defined as being cultural, what additional insight(s) is gained from this?

1. To my knowledge dolphins do not demonstrate tool-making or the sort of symbolic thought and action (and their translation into more abstract things like religion, law, ethics, etc). They do display aspects of culture but cannot be said to operate within a culture themselves. That they do not display the usage of technology certainly creates problems for anybody who would assert they are cultural.

2. Development of language does require symbolic and abstract thought but there are also biological considerations. Which of the two lays the "foundation" for it is disputed, however they are the main factors in its development.

3. A distinction? What do you mean? When discussing culture in that context you're looking at how our ability to shape the world around our symbolic/abstract thought (and be shaped by it at the same time) manifests itself in the way various groups of humans live and express themselves.

4. I'm not sure what you mean, or what you're trying to ask with this? The exploration of culture and what constitutes it is very important when studying behaviour, and can give great insight into social interactions, and how/why they take place, what their context is, and if there is any greater framework or symbolic/abstract thought behind those interactions.

[Lynx]

1. To my knowledge dolphins do not demonstrate tool-making or the sort of symbolic thought and action (and their translation into more abstract things like religion, law, ethics, etc). They do display aspects of culture but cannot be said to operate within a culture themselves. That they do not display the usage of technology certainly creates problems for anybody who would assert they are cultural.
Dolphins do not appear to possess the physical attributes necessary for tool-making. In that regard they do not have the option of expressing their culture through artifacts. It would not matter how large or complex their brains were, they would not be able to alter their relationship to their environment.
In theory, dolphins could develop an expression through the arts, as in aquatic ballet. By my account, a very limited option.

They do display aspects of culture but cannot be said to operate within a culture themselves.
Can you elaborate?

2. Development of language does require symbolic and abstract thought but there are also biological considerations. Which of the two lays the "foundation" for it is disputed, however they are the main factors in its development.
My understanding is that language serves as a means of communication. In order to create the conditions necessary for language, the organism must evolve certain physical traits. While the mechanics of language determine its initial form (physiological interpretion and expression), the scope and content of language opens up new possibilities.
I imagine that if a dolphin were to have an inventive thought, it would be frustrated by its inability to make tools. Such idle thoughts could never be worked on, nor recorded outside of memory.

3. A distinction? What do you mean? When discussing culture in that context you're looking at how our ability to shape the world around our symbolic/abstract thought (and be shaped by it at the same time) manifests itself in the way various groups of humans live and express themselves.
Your reply suggests that such a distinction is scientific, and not devoid of purpose or meaning.

4. I'm not sure what you mean, or what you're trying to ask with this? The exploration of culture and what constitutes it is very important when studying behaviour, and can give great insight into social interactions, and how/why they take place, what their context is, and if there is any greater framework or symbolic/abstract thought behind those interactions.
You have answered the question in claiming that its not simply a process of classification for classification sake, but a methodology designed to reveal something more. An example of an exploration resulting in some of the benefits you just described would be helpful.

[Yazman]

Dolphins do not appear to possess the physical attributes necessary for tool-making. In that regard they do not have the option of expressing their culture through artifacts. It would not matter how large or complex their brains were, they would not be able to alter their relationship to their environment.
In theory, dolphins could develop an expression through the arts, as in aquatic ballet. By my account, a very limited option.

Can you elaborate?

I don't really know what more needs to be said. Between what you've just said and what I've said I think its pretty clear our view on this particular issue with dolphins is very much the same.



My understanding is that language serves as a means of communication. In order to create the conditions necessary for language, the organism must evolve certain physical traits. While the mechanics of language determine its initial form (physiological interpretion and expression), the scope and content of language opens up new possibilities.
I imagine that if a dolphin were to have an inventive thought, it would be frustrated by its inability to make tools. Such idle thoughts could never be worked on, nor recorded outside of memory.

Yeah, the ability of a creature to develop cultural behaviour when it could not make use of technology would be extremely limited. For a multitude of reasons technological use, transmission and improvement is an important part of culture.

Culture is not purely biological though.. the prevailing attitude for most of the 20th century is that the mental attributes (which I described above) play an important role in the development of language as well. Symbolic thought and the ability to use and develop abstract concepts to the point they become institutions (like laws, religion, written/oral language, morals etc) is an important part in developing language.


Your reply suggests that such a distinction is scientific, and not devoid of purpose or meaning.

You have answered the question in claiming that its not simply a process of classification for classification sake, but a methodology designed to reveal something more. An example of an exploration resulting in some of the benefits you just described would be helpful.

There is definitely methodology at play, ethnography in particular is notable, but there are of course other ways in other disciplines. The difference largely comes in how the different disciplines in behavioural sciences study culture. The exploration of culture can bring different results for different disciplines; culture is important in archaeology (or physical anthropology) when examining other species of the genus homo. Whereas in sociology or cultural anthropology the study of existing cultural behaviour can contribute greatly to the development of existing institutions and how different groups are dealt with within these institutions. If you look at development anthropology (for example, there are other fields) it is a more common field today that applies the study of culture and its methodology.

[Lynx]

I don't really know what more needs to be said. Between what you've just said and what I've said I think its pretty clear our view on this particular issue with dolphins is very much the same.
I was wondering what you meant when you wrote "they do display aspects of culture".
Dolphins being playful wouldn't qualify as a cultural aspect, would it?

Culture is not purely biological though.. the prevailing attitude for most of the 20th century is that the mental attributes (which I described above) play an important role in the development of language as well. Symbolic thought and the ability to use and develop abstract concepts to the point they become institutions (like laws, religion, written/oral language, morals etc) is an important part in developing language.
Yes. Unfortunately some of these concepts can be misleading or deceptive, or remain vague.
Our vocabularies are only a subset of all the words that make up language. And some words seem familiar to us without ever having looked them up in a dictionary. It's like an odd mix of working definitions and inferences, formal and informal.

There is definitely methodology at play, ethnography in particular is notable, but there are of course other ways in other disciplines. The difference largely comes in how the different disciplines in behavioural sciences study culture. The exploration of culture can bring different results for different disciplines; culture is important in archaeology (or physical anthropology) when examining other species of the genus homo. Whereas in sociology or cultural anthropology the study of existing cultural behaviour can contribute greatly to the development of existing institutions and how different groups are dealt with within these institutions. If you look at development anthropology (for example, there are other fields) it is a more common field today that applies the study of culture and its methodology.
No way around it then - I shall have to do more homework.
p.s. I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding evolutionary psychology and EPM's (evolved psychological mechanisms)

[Lynx]

I forgot to mention bower birds, which I believe do deserve a mention, even if their behavior is not cultural:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bower_bird

[Yazman]

I was wondering what you meant when you wrote "they do display aspects of culture".
Dolphins being playful wouldn't qualify as a cultural aspect, would it?

I'm not particularly fond of the research into the topic because I think there's a certain amount of "dolphin love" rather than a genuine need for scientific inquiry motivating it. Dolphin apparently display some primitive behaviour similar to chimpanzees and bonobos that shows a potential for very basic symbolic thought and sometimes transmission of learned behaviour. This isn't anywhere near enough though nor is it sophisticated enough for it to be cultural, though. I think we can put this idea to rest as we are both in agreement on this already. They are not cultural.


Yes. Unfortunately some of these concepts can be misleading or deceptive, or remain vague.
Our vocabularies are only a subset of all the words that make up language. And some words seem familiar to us without ever having looked them up in a dictionary. It's like an odd mix of working definitions and inferences, formal and informal.

Well, its part of how we think. We do not necessarily need to reference a dictionary for us to think in a way that allows us to use a complex language, or to remember how to use it. That it is formally codified is more of an extension than a requirement.


No way around it then - I shall have to do more homework.
p.s. I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding evolutionary psychology and EPM's (evolved psychological mechanisms)

Well, this is certainly a topic that could warrant much discussion but I think its best saved for a new thread :) I have my own problems with evolutionary psychology, but yeah we will have to save that discussion for another thread.