Customer Reviews

The Emperor's Embrace: Reflections on Animal Families and Fatherhood

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This book should be discussed from two views: (1) those steeped in evolutionary theory and animal behavior and (2) those not. Those from the first camp will find many faults in the author's evolutionary arguments, but might profit from taking some of the criticisms to heart. For instance, the author sees emotional explanations for paternal care (maybe the penguin dad feels love for the egg he keeps warm: how to test this?) as alternatives to evolutionary explanations when, if the capacity for such emotions exists, they can be seen as the products of evolution (promoting a bond between father and offspring). In other words, the author poorly integrates what biologists refer to as ultimate (evolutionary function) with proximate (emotions, thoughts, physiology) perspectives. On the other hand, Masson's criticisms of evolutionary perspectives--Why not a greater focus on individual differences vs. species-typical behaviors? Why not always a clean fit between the expectations of paternity certainty, kin recognition theory, kin selection theory, etc.?--merit reflection. To non-specialists, there's more to recommend this book. Masson's accounts of non-human animal fathers are passionate, humane and sometimes beautifully written. Under one cover, one can find an ode to the penguin father, discussion of caring canids, marvel at fish (e.g. mouthbrooding)and frog dads, consider "dangerour fathers" such as bears and lions, ponder monogamy, including that prevalent among birds, focus on paternity certainty, prairie dogs and watching one's offspring leave. That's a lot, and the result is more piecemeal than integrated. If anything, this book warmly conveys the study and thought of non-human fathers, but asks for another book to better integrate examples and adequately apply an evolutionary perspective.

Having enjoyed Massons "When Elephants Weep" I expected a bit more than what I recieved from this book. His reference of the literature on animal behavior is impressive, however, his vast essays of his own opinion were a bit tiresome. When he took on a Dr. Spock attitude about raising children, it was especially boring and sometimes infuriating. I did not want to read about his first failed marriage and how his method of raising his first child differed form his second. If I wanted to know how to raise a child, I'd read a different book.

Intruiging, but save your money or wait till your library has it.

This book is a poorly organized and poorly conceived collection of half thoughts and ideas. Masson reviewed the scientific research on animal behavior. He then presents a few examples of how male animals nurture (or fail to nurture) their children. Masson's hypothesis is that if an animal father (from carp to penguin to wolf) takes care of his children, it is because of a conscious choice to be involved in the childrearing process. If, on the other hand, a male animal is not involved in child rearing, that too is a conscious choice, although usually by the mother to keep the father away. He then sympathizes with the poor male who must miss out on the wonderful joys of fatherhood.

Fatherhood is a wonderful experience for humans. Whether other animals also experience this or any other emotional response is well worth exploring. Unfortunately, this book doesn't come close to addressing the issue.

I was fascinated by the anecdotes of animal behavior, most of which were new to me. But as other reviewers have noted, going from animals to human behavior led to some over the top ideas. It had a sort of '60s feel and when I read the blurb, I was amused to find he lived just where I would have expected - Berkeley! And although he says he and most of his friends would not be bothered by finding out their children were the product of another man, I doubt very much if this is a general feeling!!!

This book is also published as 'The Evolution of Fatherhood'.

Near the end of this book, when faced yet again with infanticide, Masson says 'But it seems that the more we learn, the more our ideals, or in any event our fantasies, about the harmonious life of animals are toppled'. Yet he still holds fast to his ideals and fantasies.

With very few examples of fathering in mammals Masson has to rely largely on fish, frogs and birds. He wants us to believe that these animals experience life much as we do. I wondered what he would make of, for example, the little angler fish male that melts permanently into the body of the large female leaving little more than gonads to fertilize her eggs. What thoughts and feelings could this fish have?

When he says things such as parents feeding a cuckoo in their nest might be thinking 'This big chick may not be mine, but I like him, and I am going to feed him anyway', it will make evolutionary scientists laugh, cringe or despair.

Masson wants to encourage human fathers to be good fathers but he is looking at evolution without understanding natural selection so cannot be taken too seriously. He often talks of individuality and variation without seeming to realize that variation is precisely what natural selection acts upon - though perhaps it is a valid point that not enough attention is paid to the present-day individuality of animals on which selection will still be acting.

Masson does recognize the correlation between monogamy and the lack of sexual dimorphism and fathering. He is clearly greatly impressed by fathering when it does exist but seems to think it involves heroism or joyful experience - ie choice - rather than a selected adaptation.

I am far from convinced by his argument that human males are not concerned about paternity certainty. Also by his statement that there is no chapter on the missing ape father because it would not be interesting. On the contrary, it would be very interesting to read his views on why our closest relatives have 'chosen' not to experience the joys of fatherhood.

Masson ends with the view that Darwin himself held - the continuity with humans in the emotional and mental life of animals. Clearly humans have evolved and there can only be continuity. But Masson's Disneyesque view of life is over the top and can probably do little to change human fathering in the real world.

While it is true that Masson asserts some claims in this book that are not yet proven at this point, he also states right away that he IS NOT a scientist. He is however, an amazing author and researcher. Every claim he asserts, while perhaps not backed by biology (yet) is followed by several extremely convincing examples. he has wonderful insight and some delightful thoughts and theories on animal behavior that the scientific community would do well to explore. Because Masson is not limited to the rules of scientific hypotheses, he has the ability to ask, not only "Why?", but also "Why not?" He reminds us that just because something has not YET been proven, does not mean its impossible. We discover new truths everyday. Read this book. Read what he has to say. Allow yourself to consider the possibilities. Ask yourself "Why not?" Then form your own opinion. This book may lead you to think in new directions, even if it convinces you of nothing else.

A splendid and important book, a must-read for everyone who cares about the natural world and how we fit into it.

I've read the reviews after I picked this book up from a friend. With two sons who are very interested in animals (especially penguins) ~~ I thought, this would be an interesting read. It is very interesting and very fascinating ~~ but also very choppily written, especially towards the end of the book where I had to re-read paragraphs several times to make sure I didn't miss his point (he kept jumping back and forth with different animal fathers while talking about one "main" character and its flaws).

I have always wondered just what goes on in the animal kingdom. It is a mystery to me and the timing of my reading this book is just in time with the Discovery's "Planet Earth" series (which I highly recommend to watch, by the way!). I never knew that male fishes carried their eggs and children in their mouths to protect them from predators. I knew vaguely that wolves are awesome fathers and lions aren't. It is all very fascinating from that point of view ~~ but when he started to explain his psychological viewpoints, it got muddied and confusing. I do believe there is a lot more going on in this world that we can't explain ~~ and observing animals is just one of the many mysteries that are very fascinating for me, but I can't take every word this author has written as a literal grain of truth. He writes convincingly of animal behavior but then extends his research without really providing the facts that has been proven.

If he had stuck to what scientists and sociologists have studied and written over the years, as well as his personal observations about animal behavior, especially male/father behavior, it would make for a great book ~~ but instead he had to muddy it up with his own theories and that led to my confusion as they weren't really well-written nor thought-out arguments. It is very educational and very fascinating (I never knew half of these things that male animals do to protect their young!) ~~ and it would be something I'd recommend to my sons when they're older, as long as they know that it's not a complete scientific book. Who wouldn't want to read about male fathers in the animal kingdom?

5-5-07

When I saw the paperback edition of this book in a Shanghai bookstore, I was attracted by its subtitle: Fatherhood in Evolution. It turned out that the author may have read some books about evolutionary psychology and talked to scientists in the field, but in his book he does not discuss their findings and theses. On the contrary, The Emperor's Embrace is part of the backlash against evolutionary psychology - and it is not a convincing example of that kind of writing.

Masson, who received a Ph.D in Sanskrit from Harvard University and later trained as a Freudian psychologist in Toronto, starts from a laudable premise that reminds me of a bumper-sticker slogan used in motivational seminars: if you can conceive it, you can achieve it. In Masson's words: "we cannot test what we fail to imagine". Very true. Scientists must come up with creative ideas before they can put them to the test. And testable they should be, as Niko Tinbergen, one of the founders of ethology (the study of animal behavior) stressed: "because subjective phenomena cannot be observed objectively in animals, it is idle either to claim or to deny their existence".

Masson's favorite ideas which he presents in "The Emperor's Embrace" are: (1) animals may feel the same emotions as humans, (2) animals may be able to exercise conscious choice, (3) emotions may determine animal behavior to a larger extent than genetic disposition, (4) it makes sense to define what is "natural" for an animal species. He is very careful to stress that these ideas are just possibilities which science should not rule out (note the word "may"). To give a couple of examples from the text: (1) "these are the emotions that humans would feel in such circumstances; I can see no good reason to deny them to penguins", (2) "not every male lion kills cubs. Individual behavior certainly suggests, to me at least, individual choice", (3) "tales of animals who form deep friendships across the species barrier ... remind us of the primacy of feelings, of the powerful forces mobilized by sorrow and love and compassion, a power that can even defy the very bedrock of evolutionary logic", (4) "by and large, I think attempting to determine what is truly natural is a worthy goal. We can then always choose to alter our behavior once we know what is natural, whereas if we don't know, we will make false claims resulting in behavior that is much more difficult to change."

I personally think no scientist should attribute human emotions to animals because not only do I agree with Tinbergen, but also because as long as we cannot define what an "emotion" is in a human being we should not try in an animal. A similar argument applies to the problem of free will. Free will is a purely subjective category, a human "user illusion", if you want. As long as an animal does not tell me that it thinks it has free will, I see no reason to assume it actually thinks it has free will. The primacy of emotions over genetic disposition is also an untestable thesis as long as we can not clearly separate the parts of the emotional structure of a human being which are determined either by genes or by learning (the "nature or nurture" debate). Finally, I think it is time to throw the word "natural" on the dump heap of scientific debate. There is no such thing as a "natural" behavior. Behavior results from the interaction of a body with its environment. The body is a very complex issue (ask biologists, chemists and psychologists) and the environment is, too (ask sociologists, anthropologists, economists, historians, etc.). It is simply not possible to determine what "natural" is and then base "good" behavior on that definition. By the way, the "noble savage" which results from that kind of thinking belongs to the 18th century - and there he should remain.

If you like to see animals as human (they may not look like us, but they feel like us...), and if you need to convince yourself that it is "natural" to be a good father - another argument of the book - go ahead, read it. If you think animals should be treated on their own terms, and if you have no doubts about your abilities as a father - don't read it.

THE EMPEROR'S EMBRACE is full of information about how different animals father their offspring as well as theories/conclusion about why they father as they do. I am more interested in the "hows." I had no idea so many animal males were involved fathers and that some males joined with other males to form a family unit, ideally including children.

Very Interesting:

Author Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson quotes from a behavior psychologist I'd never heard of, John B. Watson, and this has led me to try to find Watson's book PSYCHOLOGICAL CARE OF INFANT AND CHILD, 1928. I believe it will advance my perspective on the generation reared with the dictum "Never hug and kiss your them [children], never let them sit in your lap" --in other words, affection will ruin a child--and how that rule has been passed along.