As soon as I said it, I thought of de Waal and his remarks on the way we use language to compare ourselves to animals all the time. I have never lived on a farm, and I don't know anything about chickens, with or without heads. I have no idea if the metaphor represents reality in any way--or if the illustration is completely false. It's just something I say.
In his preface to Section Three, in which he focus on the way we see ourselves, he cautions us and says "we should be particularly wary of catchy metaphors" (296). He argues that those metaphors have the power to distort the way we view animals, both human and non-human.
In your blog, you may wish to discuss how Chapter 9 fits in with this argument. If you wish, you may discuss what types of animal metaphors he focuses on in Chapter 9.
Or you may wish to focus on how the argument in the preface fits in his overall argument as stated in the Prologue.
In chapter 9, De Waal discusses two apes and talks about them and their family as if they were human. "...How to bottle-feed an adoptive daughter.." or "..Mama and Gorilla now have grandchildren," showing that animals are so close with culture as humans are. De Waal illustrates animals having "an unfolding soap opera" and even discussing one story of a male ape name Yeron who was in danger of losing his top rank to another male. Even animals have their social status, knowing who is the leader in the group and who are the followers and they get defended when one tries to take another's spot. De Waal states "Yeron relapsed into a CHILD-LIKE behavior and his tantrums were "yet another example of deft social manipulation."
ReplyDeleteThroughout chapter 9, de Waal argues that animals have their own heirarchy and that they base this organization of status on more than just pure strength. He explains that animals are dependent on their groupmates and that dominance of one individual is only made possible with the support of others in the group. According to de Waal, "it is not always just a matter of which male is the strongest or fastest, because the collective support of the females may keep a male in the saddle well beyond his prime." (300) So although a dominant male may be old and not as strong as the younger challengers, they are able to keep their leading role because the troop "often prefers a familiar, predictable leader over a younger, aggressive upstart." (300)
ReplyDeleteLater in the chapter, de Waal includes the thoughts of Maslow and argues against them, saying that the drive for dominance is automatic. So in other words, de Waal believes that monkeys and other species try to obtain dominance for more than the single reason of trying to pass their genes onto the next generation.
Throughout chapter nine, De Waal used many metaphors to describe the primates he addressed in the chapter. These metaphors used by De Waal seem to make the primates seem more human and similar to us. When describing a monkey named Mr. Spickles, he says that he is “the old boss of the troop of rhesus monkeys that I knew very well” (De Waal 299). By giving him a name with “Mr.” in it, this monkey is then given a title we humans relate males in our society with. De Waal then says, “{Spickles was a fully self-actualized kind of guy, never the slightest bit intimidated by even the most vigorous younger males” (299). De Waal is then saying Mr. Spickles is a “guy”, completely dismissing the fact that he is indeed a monkey. These metaphors are De Waal’s way of showing us how much primates are like us, so much that we can even give them our titles.
ReplyDeleteDe Waal argues in the preface that metaphors can change the way we view animals, and sometimes in a bad way. In the prologue he states that people use animals as entertainment to make ourselves superior. People use many things to make ourselves feel better and more dominant over other species. By using metaphors and having ape tea parties we seperate ourselves from nature and animals and put ourselves above them. It changes the way we view them and treat them. Since we see ourselves as superior to them we feel they can't be cultured like us. We feel we are the only species capable of culture so that is why we define culture according to humans. For example, De Waal states, "Imagine that we were to define "eating" by the use of knife and fork. Such a definition would allow us to claim eating as uniquely human" (30). He goes on to explain that we are not the only animals that eat so we cannot define it in that way. So that is why De Waal argues we cannot use certain metaphors because they ultimately change the way we view animals.
ReplyDeleteDe Waal gives many examples of how animals and humans are compared. One good one is how both former president Nixon and a chimpanzee showed similar reactions towards similar situations when under a great deal of stress. They are such different species. Because I mean seriously, who would think that a chimpanzee and the United States's president wouldhave a behavior in common!He uses a famous politician because as an icon of the mass media, people can easily relate to his behavior. He uses analogy strategy.
ReplyDeleteThe “catchy metaphors” that De Waal mentions are a great example of man’s fondness of feeling like were better then the animals we live with. Though not direct or absurd, these small slips in language probably subliminally lower the common view of animals. When we use this kind of comparison we are demonstrating our obsessive need to remind ourselves that we are different and better then them. Even if the gesture is small and innocent, the effect could be greater.
ReplyDelete-In chapter 9 De Waal talks about how the apes also have higharchy in their groups, and throught out the chapter he refers back to them, but gives them some human characteristics. Such as when he refers to the older leader of the ape group as Mr. Spickles and he also refers back to him as a guy, making him seem human.
ReplyDelete