|
Subtitle: A personal inquiry into the animal
origins of property and nations, Dell Publishing, N.Y., 1966, 390 pgs., index,
bibliography, illustrations, paperback
|
|
 |
Reviewer comment:
This is the third in the series of four books by Robert Ardrey based on the
anthropological - archeological explorations and discoveries by the Leakey
family, Raymond Dart and many others today in south- east Africa. In this book
he focuses on the connection of early humans with animals especially with
respect to behavior in seeking and defending territory. The Wikipedia entry for
Ardrey's biography contains an excellent discussion of all of his books.
He
faced disagreement and attacks especially from Marxists and followers of
Rousseau then. Today he is probably totally disregarded. And Ardrey does not
limit his comments to animal (other than human_) behavior.
No, he observes the 'territorial' competition and seeking for status among the
members of the scientific community as of other social communities. His
chapters proceed like the acts in his plays, each developing a plot and
expanding the personality and behavior of both the animals being studied and
the scientists studying them.
Throughout his 4 books Ardrey always describes the individual scientist and
attributes to him his meticulous investigation methods and theories that
advanced scientific knowledge in its one evolutionary survival of the fittest.
He has visited the locales and laboratories of the scientists who dedicate
years to the study of one tiny aspect - one individual bird or mammal or
reptile species among thousands. He has searched libraries and archives to
obtain the scientific reports dating back over many years. But his objective is
the role evolution has influenced - determined - the resulting result in human
biology, psychology and physiology.
|
|
| |
Preliminary Meditation:
This brief autobiography should be included as preliminary in all his books. H
notes that he studied and taught anthropology in the 1930's but then shifted to
becoming a playwright and movie screen writer. It was only in 1955 when he met
Prof. Raymond Dart in South Africa and discovered a room' filled with fossil
bones', part of the extent or the enormous findings of pre-human and early
human remains still being 'uncovered' literally in southern Africa. He recounts
his experience. "So fathomless was my ignorance, however, and so oceanic
were the dimensions of scientific accomplishment while my back had been turned,
that the rush consumed six years of my life, and even then I learned only to
float. For it was not just a matter of Australopithecus and the
predatory transition: there were alpha fish, and pecking orders, gene pools and
displacement activities, exploratory behavior and ritualized aggression, and
all had bearing on the human condition. Above all, there was territory. He
notes that his book, African Genesis was his first, in which he cut a
slice of the vast ramifications for the study of human behavior now expanding
from the knowledge of animal, pre-human and early human behavior. It focused on
the role of evolution that determined animal, including human, development.
Now, Territorial Imperative is another book focusing on another segment
of the vast and complex nature of human response to the same necessities that
evolution created in so many animal societies. He notes further that the study
of competition for territory among many different animal societies has been
studied by many scientists.
|
|
|
Chapter 1 - Of Men and Mockingbirds:
First, a definition. "A territory is an area of space, whether of water or
earth or air, which an animal or group of animals defends as an exclusive
preserve. The word is also used to describe the inward compulsion in animate
beings to posses and defend such a space."
He emphasizes something that is frequently misunderstood. In territorial animal
societies the males do NOT compete directly for females, but for territory
(property) because the females are sexually unresponsive to males who DO NOT
poses property. Furthermore, in almost all cases the current proprietor of
territory succeeded in expelling an intruder of the same species but ignores
individuals of other species who happen by (except of course if they constitute
a fine meal).
He summarizes: "The concept of territory as a genetically determined form
of behavior in many species is today accepted beyond question in the biological
sciences." But the implications of this genetically determined behavior in
humans have yet to be established.
His conclusion: "I regard the territorial imperative as no less essential
to the existence of contemporary man than it was to those bands of
small-brained proto-men on the high African savannah millions of years
ago."
For the remainder of the chapter Ardrey narrates and comments on the recent
developments in those sciences that relate to the subject.
One of the fundamental issues he summarizes with the statement: "A bird
does not fly because it has wings, it has wings because it flies."
He considers the concept and actions relevant to today. "I regard the
territorial imperative as no less essential to the existence of contemporary
man that it was to those bands of small-brained proto-men on the high African
savannah millions of years ago."
|
|
| |
Chapter 2 - Arena Behavior:
Arena behavior relates to animal species that set aside an arena (an arena
competing stadium) for sexual activity.
Ardrey begins by describing his days in 1960 viewing the kob in eastern Congo
and western Uganda. Then he recounts his visit 3 years later. It was then that
he learned that Helmut Buechner had disproved his earlier concepts. The
discovery by Buechner was the unusual mating procedure of the kob - everything
is left to a select handful of males without 'harems' while the Alpha males of
each 'harem' are excluded. And they perform their duty at an exclusive place (a
'stamping ground") set aside for the purpose. He stresses that the
procedure is "instinctive". He describes the entire proceeding with
the eye of the movie and play author he has for its entertainment value (both
to the kob and the human observer). The entire scenario is based on territorial
value - and that is the motivation of the kob-doe - the property, not the
proprietor. Consequently the males compete for the most favored territory, not
for the females, who will be visiting the the special locations they consider
most valuable.
One of his conclusions: "The inspiration of ownership seems necessary to
stimulate sexual desire in both males and females. Away from the stamping
ground copulation is only rarely attempted and apparently never
consummated."
He continues with many examples of bird species that create 'arenas' and
execute detailed specific ritual rules based on territory conferring status
that in turn confers the female's interest.
|
|
| |
Chapter 3 - To Have and to Hold:
In this chapter he turns to the study of pair mating. He opens with: "The
pair is a social arrangement with sexual conveniences of varying reward. The
evolutionary value of the pair does not rest, however, on sexual necessity, for
we have seen in natural arenas how flamboyantly sex can flourish without
permanent arrangements. Natural selection's concern has been with
offspring" He points out that the 'arena' method is for species in which
the female can raise the offspring without contribution from the father. But in
the many other species a pair bonding method is essential to bring the male
into the survival of the offspring. He credits Julian Huxley with early (1914)
study and resulting analysis. Among Huxley's conclusions was that it was the
necessity to defend their territory that held the pair together long after the
sexual activity had been achieved. Ardrey devotes the chapter to narrating the
progression of scientific study of many other species during the following 100
years. Among the fascinating examples of defending territory Ardrey describes
behavior that biologists term 'displacement activity' The two males facing each
other across their frontier and instinctively prevented from the disaster of
either fighting of fleeing will both turn to a programed alternative activity
specific to all members of that species, such as pulling up grass or digging a
hole. Ardrey, as a playwright, notes his observation of such activity in
humans.
He concludes the chapter with examples of human response to territorial
ownership comparing the wealth and huge production of the American farmer with
the disaster of Russian collective farming.
|
|
| |
Chapter 4 - The Voyage of the Animals:
In this chapter Ardrey takes up the example of the giant green turtles that
navigates across thousands of miles of ocean to return to their same breeding
ground. Scientists term this 'the homing problem'. They do not have a territory
to defend, but they consider a narrow, specific territory their favorite
location on which to lay their offsprings' eggs. Of course the same
navigational problem faces bird species that travel to and from the same Arctic
locations each year. There are many other species with similar habits such as
trout and salmon. He takes up the Eel story. And he discusses the ways of the
homing pigeon. His skill as a playwright comes in with his vivid descriptions
of the struggle of multiple scientists to find a clue for the skill of homing
species. Ardrey settles by relating it to territoriality. But he admits that
actually the ability of species to navigate over thousands of miles and with
time lapses sometimes of years is still unknown.
|
|
|
Chapter 5 - The Noyau:
The term means antagonism- friendship. A 'Noyau is a group of individuals who
depend on the group yet exhibit furious animosity between members of the same
group. They need the society to provide other members with whom they can be
furiously antagonistic (but in a bloodless ritual way).
He opens the chapter with: "Antagonism must have some value to living
things, why otherwise would evolution have tolerated so much of it? He begins
with an account of the famous Julian Huxley and Ashley Montagu studying the
black-tailed godwit on Texel island, Holland. The birds establish their
territory and defend it. The two scientists wondered why migratory sea birds
need to establish a territory at all. Ardrey considers that a critical issue
and in trhe chapter even advances it from the case of individual birds and
other animals to territory in the context of societies and total populations.
As with all his investigations, his ultimate focus is on how and why the animal
behavior was adapted by humans. He recounts the observations of scientists on
such varied species ad the huge hippopotamus to the tiny callicebus monkey. He
notes that behavior patters are not only individual but social to a group. He
tells of animal species that conduct ferocious (but bloodless) argument with
their neighbor at the territorial border they have established between them for
what he terms excitement, fun, relief of boredom. And various species demand
social mechanisms that are created to insure personal privacy and
"individual distance" - space between two individuals. They seek and
obtain individual identity among a population of thousands of what appear to
human observers as indistinguishable creatures. He notes that "To discuss
the psyche of the animal is to walk across dangerous ground. To expand the
hypothesis by addition of a need for identity is to render the ground no less
perilous". But he ventures forth. He concludes the chapter with a
playwright's evocative description of two such Noyau societies, the tiny
callicebus monkey and the Italian people. .
|
|
|
Chapter 6 - The Nation:
Audrey turns again to the perfect living laboratory - a museum, Madagascar,
isolated from Africa tens of millions of years ago with a population of several
lemur species but NO predators, not even apes or zebras or elephants or men.
Thus no competition to spur on evolution.
Ardrey repeats his definition of a biological nation - "a social group
that holds exclusive possession of an area, a space, which isolates itself from
others of its kind through outward antagonism, and which through joint defense
of its social territory achieves leadership, cooperation, and a capacity for
concerted action." He is amazed but finds that the evolutionary primitive
lemur has managed to create nations. It is the lemur that is the only remaining
example of primate beginnings. His anatomy is evolved very little, but we
cannot know very much about any changes in his behavior. But millions of years
ago, before the separation of Madagascar lemurs existed throughout the world.
Ardrey describes several of the 15 species studied by scientists. He notes
things we know and what we do not know about lemurs. He saddens when observing
that it is humans - from India and from Africa whose belief in the importance
of having cattle has resulted in the population of 5 million humans and 10
million cattle that have destroyed most of the forests.
In part two Ardrey switches completely to the study of protozoa - on in
particular called slime mould. They form societies that exhibit outward
antagonism. Then he discusses social insects such as ants. He again poses the
fundamental question of evolution - which came first, a change in anatomy or a
chance in behavior.
Then he moves on to the fiddler crab who also fights to defend his bit of sand.
But, he remarks, for many years - much of the 19th century, the detailed study
of animals was confined to the ornithologists focused on a variety of bird
species, so the concept of territoriality was determined by the activities of
birds. He discusses each of the few scientists who studied other animals such
as rodents, but for a long time it was the activity of birds that prevailed in
establishing varieties of activity such as defense of territory. He narrates
the development since the 1930's of the study of other animal species,
especially apes and monkeys. Early observation was confined to zoos and
laboratories. The results were full of errors including theories about the
activities of monkeys and apes relating to that of humans - particularly as to
the role of sexual attraction. It was not until extensive, serious, lengthy
study of these an other species in the wild that such misunderstanding began to
be revealed and replaced. Defense of social territory gained prominence as the
significant theory. Ardrey compares the various theories about human
psychology, behavior, instinct as they relate to their possible evolution from
other species especially apes.
|
|
|
Chapter 7 - Look Homeward, Angel:
Ardrey begins the chapter with memories about his youth in Chicago during and
after WWI. Then he moves his story to December 7, 1941 and WWII. He relates the
Japanese attack directly to the overwhelming retaliation generated by the
defense of territory motivation. He continues with examples during WWII of
nations from the Finns, to Greeks to British to Americans who fought against
invaders or expected invaders of their territory. This is a lengthy discussion.
He writes: "The territorial imperative is as blind as a cave fish, as
consuming as a furnace, and it commands beyond logic, opposes all reason,
suborns all moralities, strives for no goal more sublime than survival."
But he insists, while opposing Sir Arthur Keith, "Territory is not the
cause of war." But defense of territory is sure to follow intrusion
against it or by avoidance. At the same time recognition of the proprietor's
territorial rights is rigid for some species who will carefully avoid entering
another's territory. Or if they secretly do enter they realize they are thieves
and will be furtive about it. Ardrey mixes narration of the rapidly expanding
knowledge of primates and other species with speculation about what all this
continuing expansion will for man's understanding of man. We will find out what
is did for Ardrey's theories in his next book.
|
|
|
Chapter 8 - The Amity-Enmity Complex:
He addresses the phenomena called 'amity' and remarks that if it exists in
nature it must be in tiny quantities. This means it has to be manufactured.
Ardrey describes how that was accomplished by even lemurs millions or years
ago. It conforms to the equation A=E + h - meaning amity equals Enmity plus the
sum of enmity plus hazard. He considers enmity as the forces of antagonism and
hostility originating in members of one's species. The hazards include the
predators that species faces. And humans face an unusual source of enmity,
namely members of their own kind. The chapter is mostly philosophy - theorizing
- with several examples to support it. One was the blue-goose family on Lake
Michigan next to Chicago - another is the smooth-billed ani. This relative of
the cuckoo forms not only family pairs but societies of up to two dozen adults
in which all share amity of the group members and enmity of all outsiders. And
the third is the prairie-dog.
On this basis Ardrey turns to philosophy again. He expands the concept of
evolution meaning 'the survival of the fittest' to mean survival of the fittest
group. In this the amity-enmity complex is the resolution of a paradox stated -
"If the evolutionary process is a merciless strife among individuals to
survive with natural selection determining the fittest, then how could such
human qualities as altruism, loyalty, charity, and mercy have even come into
existence?. ... "How can man's ethical values be a product of the
evolutionary process? In the remainder of the chapter Ardrey narrates and
comments on the contests over this issue that have generated post WWII years of
contention between noted scholars whom Ardrey identifies along with their
conflicting theories.
|
|
|
Chapter 9 - Three Faces of Janus:
Ardrey lived in Rome. He was very aware of contemporary Romans and their
ancient history. Janus was the god of beginnings. From discussion of this fact
he moves on to discussion of the revolution in cosmology. Far from being in a
steady state as theory posited, the new concept is that the universe had a
Beginning in a 'great bang'. But if it has a beginning, then what was the cause
- the First Cause. He returns to the species he considers one of the oldest,
the planarian worm. He describes the efforts of dedicated scientists to
discover how the worm learned using similar experimental methods as is used for
mousses and rats. The scientists were stunned by the results. The worms
appeared to be purposely rebelling.
Ardrey, ever the playwright, recounts the scientific chaos. "The harried
investigators, faced by the organic equivalent of apples falling upward and
straight lines turning corners, bumbled about trying to find means of appeasing
their tiny rebels, who by now had taken charge of the experiment." He
describes a later scene, "By this point in the experiment it was not the
mentality of the worms being tested but the sanity of scientists, an hysteria
hovered close by."
Among his conclusions, Ardrey notes that 'behavior is a consequence not a cause
- it is an end, not a beginning. And wile we study behavior we do not
understand its cause. "Why do men and other animals act as we do?"
Via the years of study we come to some conclusions about the consequence of
behavior, not the cause.
|
|
|
Bibliographical Key
|
|
| |
References
|
|
|
Robert Ardrey - African Genesis
|
|
|
Robert Ardrey - The Social Contract
|
|
|
Robert Ardrey - The Hunting Hypothesis
|
|
|
Australopithecus
|
|
|
Evolution - The Wikipedia entry - mostly
about biology a field that has huglyu advanced since Ardrey wrote his books.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
