Relationships

[Serial_Apologist]

I wonder what the reaction (here) is to this statement: is it just?

"At the height of the controversy, during the 1970s to 1980s, the debate was highly ideologised. In Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature (1984), Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose and Leon Kamin criticise "genetic determinism" from a Marxist framework, arguing that "Science is the ultimate legitimator of bourgeois ideology ... If biological determinism is a weapon in the struggle between classes, then the universities are weapons factories, and their teaching and research faculties are the engineers, designers, and production workers." The debate thus shifted away from whether heritable traits exist to whether it was politically or ethically permissible to admit their existence. The authors deny this, requesting that evolutionary inclinations be discarded in ethical and political discussions regardless of whether they exist or not."

Doesn't the title "Not in Our Genes" appear (at least) to be in danger of reviving the so-called Nature v Nurture dichotomy by opting to (arbitrarily?) exclude "nature" in matters of ethics and politics - being the only areas which "matter" in the ideological debate?

Neither having read nor previously known about the book in question, implicit I think in how Marx thought about the relationship between the human and the "natural" was to treat in in consistency with dialectical theory: ie rather than polarised seeing the relationship as inter-dependent and evolving, alongside society in history, and never static. Dualistic thinking common to all theologies in the Judaeo-Christian lineages takes the opposite view, seeing nature, as "by nature" raw in tooth and claw, as endemic to the "baser" human instincts, always to be subject to control to prevent the expression of its excesses - the "rational", otoh, being seen as having a precarious existence, bestowed at best "by the Grace of God" or, even in psychoanalysis, at best repressed, but always in consequence at the expense of neurosis and other mental illnesses. Freud, though himself agnostic at least, inherited Judaeo-Christianity's pessimism regarding the ultimate salvability of human nature; Jung, as is evident in some of his writings, was in some ways little better in understanding, notwithstanding his deep knowledge of Eastern spiritual traditions and cultures in which, before the arrival of missionaries, these ideas did not form any part of their picture of human being.

It was above all, I think, the ideas of the post-Freudians and post-Jungians such as Norman Brown, Gregory Bateson and Eric Fromm, that informed the New Left thinking of the late 1950/s early 1960s, as well as the more liberal or left-libertarian ethos of much of the post-'68 radical left in America and Europe: these ideas - in their turn most probably originating in pre-Marx utopians including Blake and the late Victorian idealists, with/alongside the oppressed by neo-colonial exploitation, race, gender and sexual orientation. Slower, in my estimation, to filter through to this radical left has been the challenge and potential posed in advances in ecology and environmental campaigning, in re-grounding Marxian thinking in conjunction with the broadening understanding in anthropology of societies hundreds if not thousands of years ago, evolved on sustainable technologies, and the relationship between societies and their underpinning spiritual and ethical value systems, leading to a realisation of the tight interdependence existing between the technological advancements of Western civilisations and the ideas based on the mastering of lower orders in society and in the evolutionary food chain to profitable and therefore, it has been axiomatically assumed, beneficial ends. This is not to claim that nations conquering nations and slaveries did not exist in earlier ages, but rather to argue that technological advances post the Industrial Revolution, coupled with population outgrowths and their conferring of competitive advantage in advancing nations' money-governed wealth terms, substantiated the established establishment viewpoint based on victory through a nation's strength - the rights devolving from said victories dependent on maintaining ideologies based on ideas of superiority and inferiority, whether directed towards the "lower orders" of nature or people who are "different" and therefore of less worth. It may seem strange to some that many of these ideas are still being contested, but this need not necessarily be so.

[Richard Barrett]

Neither having read nor previously known about the book in question

I hereby recommend it to you. It came back to my mind recently with the death of Richard Lewontin, one of the most profound thinkers there's been, in the area between evolutionary theory and ethics (ie. in distinction to people like Dawkins and Pinker, despite the former's crucial insights).

[Serial_Apologist]

I hereby recommend it to you. It came back to my mind recently with the death of Richard Lewontin, one of the most profound thinkers there's been, in the area between evolutionary theory and ethics (ie. in distinction to people like Dawkins and Pinker, despite the former's crucial insights).

Thanks for the recommendation, Richard - I'll look it up.

[french frank]

That would be a crassly reductive argument indeed, had the authors actually put it forward, which I don't believe they did.

I was a bit cautious about that!

It's just a title (like The Selfish Gene it eschews precision in favour of snappiness). Both Lewontin and Rose made decisive contributions to genetics and evolutionary theory, so representing them as "excluding nature" is to ignore most of their scientific work, which of course they themselves don't do.

Arguments from "human nature" (with the addition of "evidence" from genetics according to taste) are of course used to justify all kinds of things, from class structures and wealth inequality to racism and even genocide. That in itself ought to give pause for thought as to whether such arguments hold water more objectively, especially given that "human nature" itself can be shown to have undergone some quite profound changes over the existence of our species.

Yes, though the subject seems to exist to a large extent on the subjective, theoretical level (if "evidence" can be interpreted "according to taste")? I'm still not clear where the objective arguments are. There is observation of the present but there is a limit as to what can be inferred about the prehistoric past. As far as relationships go, I've been fascinated to watch the interactions between dogs and their owners as compared to cats. Both have come a long way in terms of their behaviour, but how much is the result of species heredity? What about humans? You will be astounded to know I haven't come up with the answer

[Serial_Apologist]

I was a bit cautious about that!





Yes, though the subject seems to exist to a large extent on the subjective, theoretical level (if "evidence" can be interpreted "according to taste")? I'm still not clear where the objective arguments are. There is observation of the present but there is a limit as to what can be inferred about the prehistoric past. As far as relationships go, I've been fascinated to watch the interactions between dogs and their owners as compared to cats. Both have come a long way in terms of their behaviour, but how much is the result of species heredity? What about humans? You will be astounded to know I haven't come up with the answer

The whole keeping of pets by humans is an interesting subject in itself - one about which I must admit to not having much thought.

[Richard Barrett]

I've been fascinated to watch the interactions between dogs and their owners as compared to cats. Both have come a long way in terms of their behaviour, but how much is the result of species heredity? What about humans? You will be astounded to know I haven't come up with the answer

One observation is that we've domesticated dogs but that cats have domesticated us... (I am a cat butler myself by the way) What about humans? Well, we have culture in a way that other species don't, and that is as the saying goes a game changer I think!

[Dave2002]

The whole keeping of pets by humans is an interesting subject in itself - one about which I must admit to not having much thought.

Clearly pets are kept by humans, but observing some people with their pets one wonders whether it is the pet or the human which is really in control.

[Bryn]

That would be a crassly reductive argument indeed, had the authors actually put it forward, which I don't believe they did.
It's just a title (like The Selfish Gene it eschews precision in favour of snappiness). Both Lewontin and Rose made decisive contributions to genetics and evolutionary theory, so representing them as "excluding nature" is to ignore most of their scientific work, which of course they themselves don't do.

Arguments from "human nature" (with the addition of "evidence" from genetics according to taste) are of course used to justify all kinds of things, from class structures and wealth inequality to racism and even genocide. That in itself ought to give pause for thought as to whether such arguments hold water more objectively, especially given that "human nature" itself can be shown to have undergone some quite profound changes over the existence of our species.

Yes, the apparent anthropomorphism at the level of the molecule in the phrase "selfish gene" put me off Dawkins' work for a considerable time. He later made it clear that any such interpretation of the phrase was not at all his intent. I only know Lewontin's and Kamin's work through their writings but have attended several of Rose's public lectures and hold both his scientific and social credentials in the highest regard.

[french frank]

One observation is that we've domesticated dogs but that cats gave domesticated us...

But why have dogs become so easy to train while cats have only been trained in a very limited way (using a litter tray or cat flap)? Perhaps simply because dogs are seen as more useful to us (guide dogs, sheepdogs, police dogs/sniffer dogs, mountain rescue dogs, water dogs) so we've worked harder at domesticating them?

My impression is that dogs are social animals in a way that cats aren't (wolves hunt in packs as a cooperative activity, only lions hunt in groups/the pride). Dogs haven't merely been trained to carry out useful and recreational tasks: in the latter, at least, they show signs of enjoying it, of enjoying the 'togetherness' with humans. Cats may get on with their parents and siblings, they often don't get on even with a new cat arriving in 'their' household as another pet, and are territorial outside; whereas dogs seem to enjoy each other's company (I watch how they behave when they spot a 'friend' - another dog which they know). Is that a legacy of their 'pack existence' in spite of intensive domestication? Cats have remained semi-feral.

[vinteuil]

But why have dogs become so easy to train while cats have only been trained in a very limited way (using a litter tray or cat flap)? Perhaps simply because dogs are seen as more useful to us (guide dogs, sheepdogs, police dogs/sniffer dogs, mountain rescue dogs, water dogs) so we've worked harder at domesticating them?

... cats is cats, dogs is dogs. You can't train all animals to do all things -

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2v9uxz

.

[Richard Barrett]

My impression is that dogs are social animals in a way that cats aren't

... which is exactly why they're easier to train. The wolves from which domestic dogs were originally bred live in hierarchical packs where obedience and teamwork (for example in bringing down large prey animals) are important, whereas the wildcats from which the domestic cat is descended are solitary animals. The domestication of dogs has been going on for a lot longer, since they were engaged as helpers in hunting, whereas the domestication of cats dates from their perceived usefulness as mousers after the development of agriculture with its concomitant issues of grain storage. The time lag can perhaps be seen in the fact that dog breeds vary enormously in size, having been selectively bred for a lot longer, whereas the difference in size between a Siamese and a Maine Coon is nothing like as great.

[jayne lee wilson]

Christopher Hitchens:

“Owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god. Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realize that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they draw the conclusion that they are gods.”

****

'Dogs have owners; Cats have staff".

Dogs need leaders; Cats choose their friends.

[french frank]

Cats have staff"

But it's the owners' choice to be staff.

Dogs need leaders; Cats choose their friends.

Or dogs have friends, cats have staff.

[jayne lee wilson]

But it's the owners' choice to be staff.



Or dogs have friends, cats have staff.

Of all the dogs I've met, the most chaotic and unhappy were those without a clear leader within their human family, a strong hand; they often misbehave and look angry and confused. Of course a friendship can develop between many animals and humans (Pigs are great company), but domestic dogs need the pack-belonging and the leadership first, as early as possible.

You said above: "Cats have remained semi-feral".

In Cats Protection/RSPCA terms a semiferal cat is a stray; but one who has some contact with humans, often learning to rely on them for at least some of their food, but still searching and hunting for their own too. They tend not to live-in, only coming into houses to take other cats' food when they need to, learning this skill through observation. Where there’s Cats and People, there’s food. They tend never to lose that wariness and distance, especially if they are older.

I'm helping a little black one now. He fascinates me because he has so little socialisation: if you throw him a treat, he runs away, thinking himself attacked. He never picks it up to eat afterward; if you try to hand it to him he doesn't understand.
It took some weeks before he would let me stroke him; now he takes affection warmly from his provider. Even so, after calling loudly at the door, he usually backs off some distance, whilst I put his dishes in the yard or an outhouse, waiting for me to back off before he comes to eat. But late at night he creeps into the kitchen, eats whatever the other cats have left, glancing up at me warily. I feel honoured by his growing trust; but it may not go much further.
With domesticated live-in cats, its important to earn their respect; you have to show them that your recommended food and/or behaviours/activities are in their interest; make them feel good. (This is also why ferals can sometimes become very good farm cats; where Maine Coons begin.).

The bond can become very deep and close, but can only usually develop with this type of constant companion (although I’ve had some semiferal heartbreakers, FIV+ and so on, having to take them to the rescue after a year; there are some you never get over).
As Cats age they become touchingly dependent, always need to know where you are, follow you around. The relationship changes...

[french frank]

Of all the dogs I've met, the most chaotic and unhappy were those without a clear leader within their human family, a strong hand; they often misbehave and look angry and confused. Of course a friendship can develop between many animals and humans (Pigs are great company), but domestic dogs need the pack-belonging and the leadership first, as early as possible. [.... ].

I think we are sticking to the brief in discussing relationships! Rescue cats and rescue dogs do have something in common in how they behave, based on the way they've been treated. They need to be domesticated, reassured, even cosseted.

But one of the most fundamental differences between dog ownership and cat ownership - which must effect the relationship - is that dog owners are held legally responsible for the way their dog behaves in public. They must be kept 'under control' and a farmer may be entitled to shoot a dog worrying his sheep. In an urban situation where every other house has a cat, it's not even possible to tell which overnight visitor, with a 'right to roam', scratched up your seedlings and left its poo there. And if you attempt to deter them in a way that causes them harm, you can be sued as they are 'protected animals'. That is bound to make dog owners and cat owners have different attitudes towards their pets.

There can be a genuine two-way bond between owners/masters and their dogs (tales like Greyfriars Bobby, and this year Boncuk the Turkish dog are legendary). As a child in the country, I had a dog (as in, I was his main companion as there were no other children of my age in the area) but in reality he was a family dog (a 3-generation family of 6) and I don't think the dog recognised a 'leader'. Anyone who would fondle his ears or shake his paw when he offered it (which tiresomely he would not stop doing) and he was friend for life.