Susan Savage-Rambaugh & Bonobos

As each class progresses, I learn more and more about what we know biologically, and what we learn through culture. It is interesting to learn about the research done on bonobos, and their similarity to humans. Another interesting topic is the issue of how much of what non humans know and understand is biological, and how much is a result of cultural influences. How much of what they are able to do comes from training and learned behaviors and how much of it is already inherent in their DNA?
I was fascinated by Susan Savage-Rambaugh's  presentation on Kanzi and Pamanisha. You can find her presentation at: http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_savage_rumbaugh_on_apes_that_write.html . Any references made to Susan here have been taken from her presentation. During the 17 minute presentation, Susan claims that Bonobos are one of the happiest species on the planet. I believe that bonobos do differ from us in a lot of ways, but they are also like us in many others way. Such as the way they walk, which is very close to the way we do. In terms of their sexuality, however, they differ from humans in that sexuality permeates their entire life, according to Susan. And sexuality is used to resolve conflict among them and for communication. Susan said that as humans we compartmentalize our lives to fit into categories where everything has its place, unlike bonobos - where sex is a part of all aspects of their lives. But Susan believes we too, were not always like this. She also believes its not our biology, but culture, that has gotten us to where we are. In the film presentation, the woman (I wasn't clear if she was Susan) was seen in the woods with Kanzi. When she told him to gather sticks for a fire, he gathered and broke sticks for the pile. Then she told him that she had a lighter in her pocket, and that he could use it to start the fire. He reached into her pocket and using the lighter, he started the fire. Bonobos have an uncanny ability to observe an action, and then imitate it. He blew out the fire on the roasted marshmallow after she did. He even had an awareness of what he needed to do to keep the fire going. Of course he had to have observed these actions at some point, or been trained over a period of time. I keep using words like fascinating and amazing, but the fact that the bonobos could enter into an environment, be familiar with it, and carry out certain sets of actions, such as gathering wood and lighting fires, is certainly fascinating . Even when it was time to leave the camp ground, the bonobos, when asked, grabbed the jug of water and poured it over the fire to put it out. Bonoos can also understand language. The fact that he could understand language and follow through on complex human commands was quite fascinating to watch. The bonobos' level of understanding is so amazing. Is the fact that the bonobos was able to gather objects and carry them from place to place, and understands that when they look in a mirror they are seeing themselves examples of their biological make up, or human culture? Susan says that by combining bonobo and human culture, scientists are better able to see how culture plays a role in the lives of bonobos. I observed Pamanisha, another bonobos, exhibiting some of the same protective characteristics as human mothers. For instance, when her baby wanted to play with the scissors. Aware of the danger of getting hurt, Pamanisha removed the scissors from the baby's reach. Pamanisha also showed motherly qualities when she carefully and meticulously used the scissors to cut her baby's hair. That takes skill, hand/eye coordination, and the use of fine motor skills. The most incredible thing of all to me, was watching Pamanisha draw images in chalk on the floor to communicate where she wanted to go. She drew a symbol that represented the hut in the woods, and a drawing similar to the one that represented the leash she wears when she goes out. I was so fascinated by this. Susan stated that bonobos communicate in the wild using their own language, and I believe this to be true. Susan demonstrated through this presentation that because of their similarities to us, bonobos are one of the most interesting and remarkable creatures on the planet. This leaves me to wonder, how much of what the bonobos are capable of doing and understanding is within their biological make up, and how much of it is influenced by their exposure to human culture.

Human Learning vs Non Human Learning

Tomasello is a hard read. What I took from his views is that he makes the assertion that we as human have a unique and distinct capacity for cultural learning which is based on his narrowly defined view of culture. I hear him arguing that only we as humans have specific cultural attributes. I agree that there are aspects of learning that are unique to us as humans - for example, the ability to learn and acquire language, memorize data, draw connections, and be empathetic. We do differ from non humans in those respects. But Tomasello says non humans do not possess these abilities to learn because they do not experience any social processes of culture as they develop, like humans do. He asserts that we as humans have the ability to pass our knowledge on to future generations, but non humans do not. He says that our imitative learning process has resulted in our cultural evolution. There is truth in his statements and I agree with some of his views, but I also believe that there are many facets and meanings of culture. I think a lot of people would challenge some of Tomasello's views. If he broadened his definition of what constitutes culture, a few parts of his arguments may not be as strong. I would argue that non humans also experience forms of cultural learning and that we are not as different as Tomasello says we are. Even a domesticated dog adjusts to the 'culture' of the home he lives in. Savage-Rumbaugh and Fields (2000) wrote a peer review of Tomasello's book. http://search.proquest.com/docview/198153329?accountid=12617 In it, they challenged statements made by Tomasello, such as: 'only human beings engage in cultural learning' and 'socialization of attention is unique to human culture'. I also challenge such statements. The authors state that there has been research done and evidence to show otherwise. Also, Tomasello says that because the non humans have not been proven to exhibit certain behaviors in the wild, that they do not possess the ability to be intentional about their learning. I feel that the ability to learn certain behaviors is inherent in some non humans, whether or not that learning occurred in their natural habitat. For example: Tomasello says that nonhuman primates do not try to bring others to locations so that they can observe things there. But a police canine on a drug unit does this. The skill may not have been learned in the wild, but the cultural ability to learn it is still apparent. Tomasello says nonhuman primates do not actively offer objects to other individuals by holding them out. But a dog will hold out its dish when it wants to eat, or hold out a ball when it wants you to play catch. Other animals such as crows, dolphins and chimps have exhibited very strong characteristics that Tomasello says they do not possess. I am trying to wrap my head around some of the notions that animals are so vastly different from us in these ways. In the meantime, although I agree that there are many aspects of our learning as humans that differ from the social learning capacities of non humans, there are aspects of both that I feel remain quite similar.
To add to this blog post, I must explain that the above post was created after reading the first hundred pages of Tomasello, and before the class' discussion on it. During class, I was fascinated by the level of discussion and debate about Tomasello's views. For instance, a few students mentioned that Tomasello did not include certain animals in his book that we know surpass others in terms of their abilities. We were informed that Tomasello has done subsequent research and does include a more in depth perspective of the abilities of some non human primates in his other work. The class discussion has added tremendously to my learning curve in understanding Tomasello's views. The interest has been peaked to go out and research some of his subsequent findings, which is all a valuable part of our learning. I find Tomasello's work stretches our knowledge and belief about non human primates and provides interesting but debatable positions on the issue of human learning vs non human learning. I am interested to discover where our class discussions in the future will take us.   WLT