《黑猩猩文化战争:与日本、欧洲和美国的灵长类文化学家一起反思人性》尼古拉斯·兰利茨著

Pan Africa News Pub Date : 2020-12-01 DOI:10.5134/265355
Michio Nakamura
{"title":"《黑猩猩文化战争:与日本、欧洲和美国的灵长类文化学家一起反思人性》尼古拉斯·兰利茨著","authors":"Michio Nakamura","doi":"10.5134/265355","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"24 When the editor-inchief of PAN contacted me to review this book, I was somewhat hesitant. This was not because I was uninterested, but because it takes me a signif icant amount of t ime to read through a 352-page academic book in English. The reading process actually took three weeks, not simply because of my modest English ability, but also because the book contained rather intricate philosophical discussions referring to Rousseau, Heidegger, Merleau‒Ponty, etc. Nonetheless, I felt compelled to finish because the book’s theme is quite relevant to my own research and many of the people mentioned in the text are familiar to me. In brief, this book is an ethnography of “cultural primatologists” studying chimpanzees. Two famous primatologists, one from Europe and another from Japan, are the main figures of the book, although many other supporting individuals appear at relevant points. These two eminent scholars differ in various ways, which readers will learn in detail from the book, but I would like to highlight their commonalities. First, both study western subspecies of chimpanzees, field studies of which started later than those of eastern subspecies. Second, both belong to academic institutions where they were able to delve entirely into research, avoiding the need to devote time to undergraduate teaching. Third, the two were heads of their respective institutions while also conducting their own research projects (so, they have long been “alpha males!”). Fourth, their research teams are highly international in terms of membership. I draw attention to these points as I think they can affect the behaviors of researchers in the same way as the leaders’ regional or cultural origins. The descriptions of these two stalwarts by Langlitz were quite interesting and useful. Being Japanese myself, I was more familiar with the situation in Japan, but discovered a great deal from accounts of the Max Planck team. For example, it was interesting to learn of the very refined hygiene measures taken at the field site, the important role of a specialized statistician at the institute, the overhabituation problem of chimpanzees, and the tendency for students to rely exclusively on electronic devices to take data and even to read e-books in the forest (though this last point may be more of a generational difference than a cultural one), etc. Perhaps Western readers can learn likewise from descriptions of the Japanese side. The aim of this book is not just to describe the behaviors of two human alpha males, of course. By going into the field sites and laboratories of these primatologists, Langlitz’s ultimate aim is to understand the reflections of “cultural primatologists” from the viewpoint of cultural anthropology. While Langlitz is well aware that his observations are “very much skewed toward the researchers who allowed me” (p. 12), he looks more broadly at the controversy over whether or not chimpanzees have cultures by comparing the backgrounds of “field studies vs. laboratory studies” and “Euro‒American studies vs. Japanese studies.” I felt slightly awkward to find myself mentioned on p. 12 alongside big names of cultural primatology. While I felt honored to be grouped among such eminent scholars, honestly speaking this accolade should rather belong to Toshisada Nishida. Nishida also deserves to be mentioned more often elsewhere in the text, at least in my view. For example, Langlitz did not refer to Nishida even as a representative of Mahale. Instead, he repeatedly arranged “Goodall’s Gombe” and “Itani’s Mahale” consecutively (e.g., pp. 20–21, p. 59, p. 106). I do not deny the significance of Itani’s role in the initial stage of Mahale research. Calling Mahale “Itani’s,” however, seems almost like calling Gombe “Leakey’s,” as it disregards those who actually worked on site. It was Nishida who stayed at Mahale for a long time, accomplishing the habituation of K and M group chimpanzees, and subsequently writing many influential papers about the site, and maintaining it over Chimpanzee Culture Wars: Rethinking Human Nature alongside Japanese, European, and American Cultural Primatologists","PeriodicalId":358068,"journal":{"name":"Pan Africa News","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chimpanzee Culture Wars: Rethinking Human Nature alongside Japanese, European, and American Cultural Primatologists By Nicolas Langlitz\",\"authors\":\"Michio Nakamura\",\"doi\":\"10.5134/265355\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"24 When the editor-inchief of PAN contacted me to review this book, I was somewhat hesitant. This was not because I was uninterested, but because it takes me a signif icant amount of t ime to read through a 352-page academic book in English. The reading process actually took three weeks, not simply because of my modest English ability, but also because the book contained rather intricate philosophical discussions referring to Rousseau, Heidegger, Merleau‒Ponty, etc. Nonetheless, I felt compelled to finish because the book’s theme is quite relevant to my own research and many of the people mentioned in the text are familiar to me. In brief, this book is an ethnography of “cultural primatologists” studying chimpanzees. Two famous primatologists, one from Europe and another from Japan, are the main figures of the book, although many other supporting individuals appear at relevant points. These two eminent scholars differ in various ways, which readers will learn in detail from the book, but I would like to highlight their commonalities. First, both study western subspecies of chimpanzees, field studies of which started later than those of eastern subspecies. Second, both belong to academic institutions where they were able to delve entirely into research, avoiding the need to devote time to undergraduate teaching. Third, the two were heads of their respective institutions while also conducting their own research projects (so, they have long been “alpha males!”). Fourth, their research teams are highly international in terms of membership. I draw attention to these points as I think they can affect the behaviors of researchers in the same way as the leaders’ regional or cultural origins. The descriptions of these two stalwarts by Langlitz were quite interesting and useful. Being Japanese myself, I was more familiar with the situation in Japan, but discovered a great deal from accounts of the Max Planck team. For example, it was interesting to learn of the very refined hygiene measures taken at the field site, the important role of a specialized statistician at the institute, the overhabituation problem of chimpanzees, and the tendency for students to rely exclusively on electronic devices to take data and even to read e-books in the forest (though this last point may be more of a generational difference than a cultural one), etc. Perhaps Western readers can learn likewise from descriptions of the Japanese side. The aim of this book is not just to describe the behaviors of two human alpha males, of course. By going into the field sites and laboratories of these primatologists, Langlitz’s ultimate aim is to understand the reflections of “cultural primatologists” from the viewpoint of cultural anthropology. While Langlitz is well aware that his observations are “very much skewed toward the researchers who allowed me” (p. 12), he looks more broadly at the controversy over whether or not chimpanzees have cultures by comparing the backgrounds of “field studies vs. laboratory studies” and “Euro‒American studies vs. Japanese studies.” I felt slightly awkward to find myself mentioned on p. 12 alongside big names of cultural primatology. While I felt honored to be grouped among such eminent scholars, honestly speaking this accolade should rather belong to Toshisada Nishida. Nishida also deserves to be mentioned more often elsewhere in the text, at least in my view. For example, Langlitz did not refer to Nishida even as a representative of Mahale. Instead, he repeatedly arranged “Goodall’s Gombe” and “Itani’s Mahale” consecutively (e.g., pp. 20–21, p. 59, p. 106). I do not deny the significance of Itani’s role in the initial stage of Mahale research. Calling Mahale “Itani’s,” however, seems almost like calling Gombe “Leakey’s,” as it disregards those who actually worked on site. It was Nishida who stayed at Mahale for a long time, accomplishing the habituation of K and M group chimpanzees, and subsequently writing many influential papers about the site, and maintaining it over Chimpanzee Culture Wars: Rethinking Human Nature alongside Japanese, European, and American Cultural Primatologists\",\"PeriodicalId\":358068,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pan Africa News\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pan Africa News\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5134/265355\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pan Africa News","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5134/265355","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

24当PAN总编辑联系我评论这本书时,我有些犹豫。这并不是因为我不感兴趣,而是因为阅读一本352页的英文学术书籍要花费我大量的时间。整个阅读过程实际上花了三个星期,这不仅仅是因为我的英语水平一般,还因为这本书包含了相当复杂的哲学讨论,涉及卢梭、海德格尔、梅洛-庞蒂等人。尽管如此,我还是觉得有必要把这本书读完,因为这本书的主题与我自己的研究非常相关,而且书中提到的许多人我都很熟悉。简而言之,这本书是一本研究黑猩猩的“文化灵长类动物学家”的人种志。两位著名的灵长类动物学家,一位来自欧洲,另一位来自日本,是这本书的主要人物,尽管在相关的地方出现了许多其他的辅助人物。这两位杰出的学者在许多方面存在差异,读者将从书中详细了解,但我想强调他们的共同点。首先,他们都研究黑猩猩的西部亚种,对西部亚种的实地研究开始得晚于对东部亚种的实地研究。其次,他们都属于学术机构,在那里他们可以完全钻研研究,避免花时间在本科教学上。第三,两人都是各自机构的负责人,同时也在进行自己的研究项目(所以,他们一直是“男性领袖”!)第四,他们的研究团队在成员方面高度国际化。我提请注意这些点,因为我认为它们可以影响研究人员的行为,就像领导者的地域或文化出身一样。朗利茨对这两位中坚分子的描述既有趣又有用。作为日本人,我对日本的情况比较熟悉,但从马克斯·普朗克团队的描述中发现了很多。例如,了解到在野外采取的非常精细的卫生措施,研究所专业统计学家的重要作用,黑猩猩的过度习惯问题,以及学生完全依赖电子设备获取数据甚至在森林中阅读电子书的趋势(尽管最后一点可能更多的是代际差异,而不是文化差异),等等,这是很有趣的。也许西方读者可以从日本方面的描述中学到同样的东西。当然,这本书的目的不仅仅是描述两个人类男性领袖的行为。通过进入这些灵长类动物学家的实地地点和实验室,Langlitz的最终目的是从文化人类学的角度来理解“文化灵长类动物学家”的反思。虽然Langlitz很清楚他的观察“非常倾向于允许我的研究人员”(第12页),但他通过比较“实地研究与实验室研究”和“欧美研究与日本研究”的背景,更广泛地看待黑猩猩是否有文化的争议。在第12页,我发现自己和灵长类文化界的知名人物一起被提到,我感到有点尴尬。虽然我很荣幸能被归入这些杰出的学者之列,但老实说,这一荣誉更应该属于西田俊田。至少在我看来,西田也应该在文本的其他地方被更多地提及。例如,Langlitz甚至没有将西田称为马哈尔的代表。相反,他反复地连续编排《古道尔的贡贝》和《伊塔尼的马哈尔》(例如,第20-21页,第59页,第106页)。我不否认伊塔尼在马哈尔研究初期所起的重要作用。然而,称马哈勒为“伊塔尼的”,几乎就像是称贡贝为“利基的”,因为它忽视了那些在现场工作的人。正是西田在马哈尔呆了很长一段时间,完成了K和M组黑猩猩的习惯化,随后写了许多有影响力的论文,并与日本、欧洲和美国的灵长类文化学家一起维护了“黑猩猩文化战争:重新思考人性”
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Chimpanzee Culture Wars: Rethinking Human Nature alongside Japanese, European, and American Cultural Primatologists By Nicolas Langlitz
24 When the editor-inchief of PAN contacted me to review this book, I was somewhat hesitant. This was not because I was uninterested, but because it takes me a signif icant amount of t ime to read through a 352-page academic book in English. The reading process actually took three weeks, not simply because of my modest English ability, but also because the book contained rather intricate philosophical discussions referring to Rousseau, Heidegger, Merleau‒Ponty, etc. Nonetheless, I felt compelled to finish because the book’s theme is quite relevant to my own research and many of the people mentioned in the text are familiar to me. In brief, this book is an ethnography of “cultural primatologists” studying chimpanzees. Two famous primatologists, one from Europe and another from Japan, are the main figures of the book, although many other supporting individuals appear at relevant points. These two eminent scholars differ in various ways, which readers will learn in detail from the book, but I would like to highlight their commonalities. First, both study western subspecies of chimpanzees, field studies of which started later than those of eastern subspecies. Second, both belong to academic institutions where they were able to delve entirely into research, avoiding the need to devote time to undergraduate teaching. Third, the two were heads of their respective institutions while also conducting their own research projects (so, they have long been “alpha males!”). Fourth, their research teams are highly international in terms of membership. I draw attention to these points as I think they can affect the behaviors of researchers in the same way as the leaders’ regional or cultural origins. The descriptions of these two stalwarts by Langlitz were quite interesting and useful. Being Japanese myself, I was more familiar with the situation in Japan, but discovered a great deal from accounts of the Max Planck team. For example, it was interesting to learn of the very refined hygiene measures taken at the field site, the important role of a specialized statistician at the institute, the overhabituation problem of chimpanzees, and the tendency for students to rely exclusively on electronic devices to take data and even to read e-books in the forest (though this last point may be more of a generational difference than a cultural one), etc. Perhaps Western readers can learn likewise from descriptions of the Japanese side. The aim of this book is not just to describe the behaviors of two human alpha males, of course. By going into the field sites and laboratories of these primatologists, Langlitz’s ultimate aim is to understand the reflections of “cultural primatologists” from the viewpoint of cultural anthropology. While Langlitz is well aware that his observations are “very much skewed toward the researchers who allowed me” (p. 12), he looks more broadly at the controversy over whether or not chimpanzees have cultures by comparing the backgrounds of “field studies vs. laboratory studies” and “Euro‒American studies vs. Japanese studies.” I felt slightly awkward to find myself mentioned on p. 12 alongside big names of cultural primatology. While I felt honored to be grouped among such eminent scholars, honestly speaking this accolade should rather belong to Toshisada Nishida. Nishida also deserves to be mentioned more often elsewhere in the text, at least in my view. For example, Langlitz did not refer to Nishida even as a representative of Mahale. Instead, he repeatedly arranged “Goodall’s Gombe” and “Itani’s Mahale” consecutively (e.g., pp. 20–21, p. 59, p. 106). I do not deny the significance of Itani’s role in the initial stage of Mahale research. Calling Mahale “Itani’s,” however, seems almost like calling Gombe “Leakey’s,” as it disregards those who actually worked on site. It was Nishida who stayed at Mahale for a long time, accomplishing the habituation of K and M group chimpanzees, and subsequently writing many influential papers about the site, and maintaining it over Chimpanzee Culture Wars: Rethinking Human Nature alongside Japanese, European, and American Cultural Primatologists
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信