Customer Reviews

The Ape and the Sushi Master: Cultural Reflections of a Primatologist

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Writing with a broad, non-academic audience in mind, 'The Ape and the Sushi Master' provides an enjoyable and informative exploration of our human cultural biases. With respect to the more commonly reflexive leanings towards anthropomorphism when reflecting upon non-human animal behaviour, De Waal repeatedly reminds us of its extents, rather than constraints throughout this volume. Thematic throughout the chapters is the view that little is to be gained from the rather naively claimed evolutionary dichotomy of 'culture Vs nature' (as has always been the case for the equally problematic and inane 'nature Vs nurture' debate in my view). Whether reading this book will help prevent arguments continuing in the struggle for one side against the other, De Waal clearly states the circularity of these positions, including the (non-obvious to many) fact that they do not necessarily provide opposing views. Even for the more academic reader, this point is made in a way many students of animal behaviour (and indeed, perhaps, some of their professors) might benefit from reading. I would strongly recommend this general reading book if only for that reason.
The prevailing view recurrent throughout the chapters is that culture is a part of human nature (hence the circularity of the false dichotomy), and, in the mold of Lorenz, or the more popular writer Desmond Morris, De Waal does not dismiss the continuity between human and non-human animal behaviour. With regards any specific human cognitive developments, however, the evolutionary antecedents of such in the comparative literature are dealt with at a purely anecdotal level in this book (though a welcome set of notes and references provide some direction for those interested to check out some primary sources).

Of interest perhaps to those wanting to better understand human sexual behaviour (and its variations), De Waal includes an informative chapter concerning the bonobo chimpanzee 'kamasutra primates'. These are presented as a highly sociosexual species for reasons other than providing solely a male territorial imperative. Distinct from his earlier 'Chimpanzee Politics', De Waal's commentary here is consistent with his more recent ideas concerning reconciliation behaviour and social bonding via mutual sex in both single and mixed pairs/groups of apes. Citing the prudishness of (especially American) humans in preventing this story being more widely known (and well told in this volume, Ch.3), this bonobo chimpanzee behaviour is put forward as the most likely contender for mis-anthropomorphism since that of their chimpanzee cousin Pan troglodites' following discussions provoked by Darwin's 'Origin of Species'.

The rather puzzling reference to sushi in the title can be explained by the inclusion of two interwoven themes appearing throughout the volume. The first is De Waal's championing the contribution of the pioneering work of Japanese primatologists in semi-naturalistic ape colonisation studies (e.g., the longitudinal studies which claimed the cultural transmission of potato washing). The second is reference to the strict training regime of the Japanese Sushi chef, who undergoes upwards of three years of observational learning from a sushi Master Chef (human cultural transmission of fish dressing) prior to their exercising any of the skills required. Both these sets of findings (the former especially enjoyable to read from this book) bear upon another pair of terms of contention, 'learning and instinct', but less is explicitly made of this old bone here than demands comment in review. Perhaps a comment should be made here, however, with regards De Waal's claim for the existence of non-food related contingency rewards in Ch. 6. Although the evidence remains in a sense anecdotal, and without denying behaviours as being otherwise goal-directed, De Waal suggests that social learning is 'socially motivated'. The claim here is that 'social orientation feeds mimicry', and for reinforcement (reward contingency), the rewards are thus simply those of social conformism (and the benefits such acceptance and 'fitting in' can provide). Perhaps an extention of 'chimpanzee Politics' after all ?

Although I really liked De Waal's discussions of (actually attacks upon) naive cultural anthropomorphism, I look forward to seeing whether his term to describe the converse condition of being in 'anthropodenial' gains currency in the future. De Waal does make the occasional unwarranted claim himself, however, concerning the mentation and attributions of his non-human animal subjects. For example, we read that "[animals]... have only a vague understanding of what others are doing" (p.19) and, "We [humans] are the only animals with the concept of paternity as a basis for fatherhood" (p.73). The dangers of pursuing the types of research questions being adressed here and the need for a more empirical approach to their study are clearly evident in the production of these kinds of statements. But that is not to say that it cannot be achieved. An understanding of group dynamics should always consider the dynamics of its individual constituents, and it will always be important for us to distinguish between what a given animal DOES, from what it might be capable of thinking and knowing. In this sense, the apprentice sushi chef should certainly know a lot more than our observation of his/her overt behaviour might lead us to believe.

I was delighted when I saw that this book had come out. For those who had never read de Waal, both his 'Chimpanzee Politics' and book on bonobos were great books as general reading-- outside of the context of primate anthropology. He is an engaging writer with a good story to tell.

De Waal wants to make culture away from being a human-centric concept. Such, he uses stories from the world of monkies to make his point: animals have group-learned concepts and ways of doing things that differ from independant populations (I wish I could say this more eloquently....) He can flat out write.

Buy this book. Read this book.

A joke that begins like this is typical of crude and simplistic anthropomorphism and is illustrative of why scientists are so scared of being called anthropomorphic. The consequence of such a label is usually a joke at the their expense: "Have you heard the one about the scientist who walks into a store with a parrot on his shoulder?" Franz De Waal is neither a subscriber to "joke-a-day" nor to such base forms of anthropomorphism. He starts out by mentioning that for most scientists, interest in their field began with a love for nature. Such a closeness to animals "creates the desire to understand them, and not just a little piece of them, but the whole animal." In such a venture good scientists employ all available tools and consequently "anthropomorphism is not only inevitable, it is a powerful tool."

De Waal is convincing, but on this point he need not be overwhelmingly so since most scientists have no problem distinguishing between childish and humorous anthropomorphism, and that which is useful in providing anecdotal observations on animal behavior. De Waal states that in the earliest days of ethology (the naturalistic study of animal behavior) and long before sociobiology argued the point, the very idea of any "continuity between human and animal behavior" was anathema to all. Things have changed and the dividing line between nature/nurture is no longer under attack, (to remain a target something must at least exist and that line is now so blurred as to be unidentifiable). De Waal has his sights set elsewhere and rips "a maximum number of holes in the nature/culture divide." He convincingly shows that not only do animals have a culture, but that it is robust, diversified, and learned through a process of imitation. De Waal shows that in Eastern cultures there is little resistance to the idea of animal culture. He spends some time looking at the work of Japanese primatologist Kinji Imanishi. The Japanese approach is another method of primatology and it gave De Waal the idea for his book's title. The APE AND THE SUSHI MASTER speaks to the similar teaching techniques used by mother apes and Sushi chefs. Apprentice cooks and young apes both learn through years of observation and imitation.

Reading this book will give you insights into not only how we view animals and what the nature of culture is, but it also has something to say about how we view ourselves. The book is very well written and is aimed at a general reading audience. De Waal is thoughtful and offers his opinions in a non forceful manner. For a book that deals with such contentious subjects, it's refreshing that there is very little invective. Blind support for "selfish genes" is however justifiably criticized and De Waal shows that altruism and cooperation are equally as likely outcomes of natural selection. It's now time for us to emerge from "anthropodenial" about animal culture and "of being tied to how we are unlike any animal". Instead we are urged to adopt a more humanistic view - and concomitantly, a more humane view of animals - both grounded in science. We may then believe that "human identity [is] built around how we are animals that have taken certain capacities a significant step farther."

Frans de Waal has taken the lead position in the swelling ranks of researchers clarifying the picture of humanity's place in nature. Combining his own and others' study of the great apes, he presents us a vivid survey of primate behaviour. His roots and experience are combined in this fascinating account. His Dutch background, American academic position, and keen observing powers have led him to redefine our view of our primate relatives. His critical insights are matched by his prose skills in presenting them, making this informative work a pleasure to read. There is much to be learned from de Waal. He removes any remaining doubt that we are at one with our fellow creatures.

De Waal challenges the dominant view among Western researchers that animal studies must be done from a detached view. He stresses the distinction between "anthropocentrism" and "anthropomorphism." The former sharply divides humans from the remainder of the animal kingdom, holding "culture" as a unique human artefact. The second, properly applied, enables us to view all the animal kingdom in a broader scale. De Waal cites the long history of Japanese primate research and more recent Western efforts as examples of the difference. The Eastern world integrates animals within its cultures while the Western view is humanity has been given "dominion" over them. In a practical sense, this outlook gave the Japanese a head start in primate research. They consider each individual in chimpanzee troops, where Westerners only perceive the group as an entity.

As de Waal escorts us through the last half-century of primate research, he assess the contributions of each of the major figures in the field. Lorenz, Tinbergen, Desmond Morris from the West are contrasted with their Eastern counterparts. Of particular importance is Japan's Imanishi Kinji a towering figure in primatology, almost unknown here. Imanishi's outlook was a near refutation of Darwin's natural selection. Imanishi rejected the idea that animal behaviour is genetically driven and began the redefinition of "culture" based on his studies of primates. With "culture's" many restraints cast away, Japanese researchers could perceive behaviour little noted in the West.

Some of de Waal's examples are breathtaking. Animal art occupies a chapter, dominated by examples of chimpanzee attitudes while they work. Dedicated attention, care in application and possessive attitudes lead to paintings equal to Pollock's and applauded by Picasso. Pigeons turn away from Schoenberg [and who can blame them] in favour of Bach. From the obverse angle, the number of human composers who have relied on birds and other animals for inspiration range from Mozart down. The message is clear: "culture" is an aspect of the entire animal kingdom. We are but a part of a universal condition.

It's de Waal's message about animal learning that tumbles the final barricade between humans and their kin. The title of this book is derived from apprentice sushi chefs spending years merely observing a master until they can demonstrate their own abilities. In a similar manner, our ape cousins learn by watching and imitating. The young may be better at learning than the old. One community may develop new habits unseen elsewhere. Later practitioners may add improvements to style and technique. Learning, however, is not limited to "wise man." It's a trait that may be applied to any species with sufficient intellect and dexterity to demonstrate it.

De Waal's presentation challenges the entire scholarship of thinking about evolution. He will not accept the "traditional" view of human uniqueness in culture or learning capacity. Nor does he accept the more recent "selfish gene" thesis of innate adaptation traits. His balanced view will force many to rethink their ideas to arrive at a new synthesis of human and animal behaviour patterns. The book is a clear assertion that much research remains to be undertaken in improving our understanding of where evolution has led us. A provocative, thought stimulating book, yet highly readable, makes this effort worthy of the accolades it has received.

I have just finished reading this book, and I am both thrilled and saddened. I am thrilled because someone has had the insight and courage to say that our human characteristics are not all that unique in the world and that culture is not all-or-nothing. I am saddened because it was made painfully clear just how much our own values and beliefs affect what we see...or even what we WILL see. Western society with its insistence that humans are utterly distinct and even "unnatural" and its refusal to look at certain issues like sexuality means that we are constantly blinding ourselves to the facts. If there was ever a treatise that showed just how much cultural affects perceptions--including the perceptions of what and where is culture!--this is it. I agree that the flow of the book is a little jumpy, going from discussions of personalities like Konrad Lorenz to discussions of ethological observations, but here too we get to see human blinders in action. Too many people looked at Lorenz--and still look at Darwin--through their own political (and "other") agendas and do not judge the work itself and the facts it is based on. Maybe if we were a little LESS personal in our evaluations of the world around us and took it on its own terms, we would understand more and argue less.

Everyone wants to be special. In big families, children vie for the place of momma's little boys or girls; in the army, every soldier carries a marshal's staff in his backpack. There is barely any nation (mature enough to identify itself as a nation) which successfully resisted, throughout its history, messianic ideas. The worst political nightmares of the last century arose from our burning desire to be special, and to prove so to all other untermenschen.

But let's face it, we are not special. During the last decades, the civilization entered a phase when it can destroy itself - by military or industrial means. We proudly predict the end of the world. But the world has existed for billions of years before us, and will safely do without us. Even in the worst-case scenario of a nuclear Armageddon, cockroaches will survive. It will not be the end of the world. Just the end of us. Big deal. It's just one species.

It seems to be pretty important to come to terms with being ordinary. To find a proper place for ourselves in the world. To stop misrepresenting ourselves. Once Copernicus shifted Earth from the central place in the universe, astronomy ceased to be a fairy tale, and eventually space travel became possible. Everybody won, in the long run.

The first father of modern Western thought, Aristotle, seemed to be aware of this need. (Though I am always wary about interpretations of Aristotle in modern science books - his writings are not perfectly preserved and extremely cryptic, and blurred by twenty-five hundred years of interpretations.) The second father of modern Western thought, Descartes, did away with it, reinforcing the ideas of our special position, of God's special treatment of our species, and rejecting any continuity between (other) animals and ourselves.

We are still struggling with the consequences. Darwin offered a bridge across this yawning gap, but old convictions die hard. We are still extremely uncomfortable with the idea of our connection with the rest of the living world.

De Waal's book poses just one question: do animals have culture? To answer that, we need to define terms, of course. He defines culture as non-genetically transmitted information. And then he easily says - Yes, they do. Songbirds have dialects (roughly speaking, nightingales and rossignols do not sing the same tunes). Japanese monkeys in a certain colony on a certain island wash sweet potatoes in the sea. Chimpanzees of a certain colony use stone tools to crack coconuts open. They are not born this way. They learn it from each other and pass it down to the next generations. Just like us. We are not born with driving skills, for example. We cannot possibly be, such skills have been necessary for only about one hundred years, that's not even recognizable as evolutionary time. But we learn to drive, some better than others; and chimps learn to crack coconuts. There are human populations which do not need to drive, and they don't. There are chimp populations where coconuts do not grow, and they don't have these skills. Simple, isn't it.

Simple. But consider the implications. All difference between the ape and the sushi master becomes quantitative. We find ourselves not on the pinnacle of God's creation, but rather in a link connected to the endless chain. We are forced to reconsider everything that we deem exclusively human. And the more we consider it, the weaker our case for uniqueness. Altruism? You can routinely train dogs to blow up enemy's tanks. There is no reward, no evolutionary need that justifies such actions. Language? We hardly know what language is; we do not know when, how or why it originated; we do not have bullet-proof ways to separate animals' communication means from ours. Art? Humans have lived for thousands of years without any trace of art; either our definition of "humans" is seriously flawed, or art is not crucial for our biological existence. And then again, there are ape painters, and they, argues De Waal, do it for their own pleasure. Social structures? There are animals with such sophisticated social life that our states and parties (both senses) seem a joke in comparison.

It is not bad to be self-centered, it is bad to be self-absorbed. Once we understand our limitations, things will go more smoothly. It is good for us to know that there is no metaphysical divide between the ape and the sushi master.

De Waal's book is patchy, and sometimes his story seems to be jumping from subject to subject without much effort to glue chapters together. The author's Dutch experience is very interesting for me, but I live in the Netherlands, so this opinion is strictly private. His forays into the history of the question and the lives of scientists who gave it its present form are educational and lucid. He is a scientist all right, but there is no trace of guild narrow-mindedness in what he writes. And he does not accompany his thoughts on probably the most important scientific, philosophical and human question of all times with pomp and circumstance. He treats it with a grain of salt, but with the earnestness it deserves. And the book reads smoothly. Thumbs up, on hands and feet alike.

de Waal is intelligent, learned and wise. He is a reasonably competent writer. The ultimate objective of the book is to eliminate concepts of rigid duality: duality between humans and the rest of animals, duality between human nature and human culture. The substance of the book is an exploration of findings about animal culture (yes, animals are products of culture as well as genes), and the insights into ourselves these findings provide. A secondary strand is a historical review of competing ideas. I could have done with less emphasis on the secondary strand. Part of this relates to my own interest. Part relates to the fact that too often there is overkill: the sympathetic reader (dare I say intelligent and objective reader) is convinced by de Waal long before de Waal seems to expect him to be.

As anthropologist, I strongly recommend the reading of this book, especially for non-specialist. Easy to read, full of such interesting reflexions and historical fact. It is THE book to read for better understanding where human stand in the animal kingdom.

I have bought and read this book. In my opinion, it's very well-written. It goes into long discussions about the ideas of culture from several points of views. He uses many an example to illustrate his point in order to get the reader to fully understand where he's coming from. Rather than merely criticize any argument against his point, he illustrates where the point is coming from in order to give their point a chance, then to go on to his point. It was sensitive to the issues concerning the subject, but firm in his point of view. However I did think it could have been shorter. While, it is a very good read, it can be too lengthy in the number of examples he uses. While I understand that he does so in order to make the point hit the reader in the head, he could have been more straightforward, rather than going around the point before saying what his point was. Otherwise, that is my only negative critique of the book. If you're fine with a long book, and have plenty of spare time to read it, I recomment you read it. Otherwise, this book isn't for you.

Highly informative, insightful and enlightening to anyone interested in human nature. A very humbling yet thought provoking account of how much of this intangible matter - morals - we share with primates. You will also learn that a tremendously big part of our individual and collective behavior apparently started in apes. It robs us of our perceived uniqueness, but simultaneously enriches us with a widened realization of a bigger and more complex picture. And this is just a tiny sliver of many other wonderful revelations that are kept for your in store in this treasure trove of a book! A must read.