|
|
May 24, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Animal HarmPosted on Jul 11, 2011
In 1973, a Columbia University behavioral psychologist named Herbert Terrace had this idea: Suppose you raised a chimpanzee in conditions as close as possible to those of a human baby, in the process attempting to teach him to communicate with his “family” by the use of sign language. Terrace’s notion was that, if successful, the barriers between man and his closest animal relative would be broken. Just possibly, a redefinition of what it means to be “human” would be achieved. So a baby animal was acquired—and named “Nim Chimpsky” (that play on the name of Noam Chomsky represents academic humor at its lamest)—and, sure enough, the sweet little creature quite quickly acquires more than a hundred signs by which he can communicate his needs and desires to the humans with whom he is cohabiting. What this actually means in terms of the grand design underlying this project is unclear to me. It seems to me that what Nim is actually being taught is more in the nature of a circus trick than a serious scientific endeavor. “Aw, isn’t that cute.” But never mind that for the moment. The thing that Terrace didn’t factor into his design was simple—namely that chimps rather quickly grow up into quite large animals that don’t entirely understand the difference between playing around and more menacing sorts of behavior. I guess someone like Terrace would say that they never achieve full-scale “socialization.” Putting it another way, you can take a certain amount of the animal out of the creature, but not all of it. In director James Marsh’s documentary “Project Nim,” our sympathy flows naturally to the variously tormented ape. He seems to be a fundamentally good-natured fellow, and one earnestly attempting to ingratiate himself with the individuals who work with him. But let’s face it, he is, at base, a creature of the wild—one that can be taught tricks (like those circus seals that can play little tunes on an assortment of horns)—but not the subtleties of human interaction. At the end of the day, what he is responding to is what all animals respond to: a primitive system of rewards and punishments of the “good dog, bad dog” variety. These, I’m convinced, do not in any way address that redefinition of humanity that Terrace, at his most grandiose, sought to establish. Marsh, who also directed the highly regarded “Man on Wire” documentary, understands this, though he is too good a filmmaker to openly insist on the point. He presents his interviewees and his excellent historical footage to tell this story objectively, and he shows that Nim’s guardians are decent, well-meaning folks who genuinely like Nim and are inclined to cut him plenty of slack when his animal nature is ascendant. But, in the end, this is a minor tragedy. Finally Nim has to be returned to the primate research center from whence he was abducted as a baby, where what we might call his “people skills” are of no use to him in relating to his own kind (none of whom he has ever encountered in the course of his life as a pseudo-human being) or in developing behaviors useful to him living in the wild. He is a sad and isolated creature who is luckily granted some kind of happy ending when a human friend, who wants nothing from him except a playful friendship, more or less adopts him. We, in the audience, breathe a collective sigh of relief when that happens. But this fact remains: We have witnessed, in this film, a prolonged study in animal abuse. I think Terrace is the worst kind of sadist—the unknowing kind—and I think this very good film provides a record of “science” at its most useless. I don’t want to present myself as a fur-hugging animal rights activist. But Terrace and his well-meaning associates do succeed in humanizing Nim just enough so that we can sympathize with him in his many confusions, which rob him of his fundamental identity without providing him with a reliable replacement for it. Marsh has said that Nim had a forgiving nature, which is a good thing. Without it, and had he been a little larger, he might well have been an angry and anguished King Kong, with which in its little, touching way, this film shares many values, while adding a grim critique of science arrogantly marching on into a very disturbing moral abyss. Advertisement TAGS:
|
After Oklahoma Disaster, Give Thanks to Government
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By LocalHero, July 17, 2011 at 3:56 pm Link to this comment
This reminds me of the poor dogs that are dragged into war zones to sniff out bombs. Did anyone ask the dogs if they wanted to participate in our slaughter? It’s bad enough that idiot soldiers sign up for it but to trap dogs in our insanity is revolting.
Report thisBy Newposter, July 17, 2011 at 12:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
‘... I don’t want to present myself as a fur-hugging
animal rights activist. ...’
Is there something inherently wrong about being a
“fur-hugging animal rights activist”, and if so, why?
It seems that Schickel is pandering to an imagined
audience which might possibly be anti- “fur-hugging
animal rights activists”. Apparently he doesn’t want
to offend those animal rights activist haters. Why,
they might think something mean about him.
Also, he missed a chance to use the Seinfeld
disclaimer: “Not that there’s anything wrong with
that!”
To me the issue is pretty simple. Apes are the
closest creatures to human. Human make laws against
kidnapping, against holding people prisoner without
due process, and so forth. We are very fond of
saying that chimps and other apes are very smart,that
they share most of our DNA, and so forth. In fact,we
believe the apes are “almost human”.
Yet nothing is thought to be wrong with ripping
one of these creatures away from family, tribe, and
natural environment, and then keeping it prisoner for
years- usually for life- as a pet or a “research
project”.
Humans don’t like to be kidnapped, transported
thousands of miles from home, and permanently put
behind bars. But we assume that animals really don’t
mind if we do that to them.
It’s undeniable that animals want and need freedom
as much, if not more, than humans do. Freedom is so
important that an animal will chew its own limb off
to free itself from a trap.
Yet we persist in believing we are doing “God’s
will” in such things, because of that blasted passage
in the Bible that says humans have “dominion”.
Don’t ever convince a human that he has divinely
sanctioned “dominion” over anything, because he will
think it means permanent ownership with no
restrictions.
This belief in dominion is not a divine edict, and
should not be thought of as one, despite the
formidable power of an overarching set of religious
traditions that essentially tell the ignorant to
“believe, and you will get goodie points!”.
It is not a divine edict, but a rationalization
Report thisof the human mind. It is only a human construct. It
is also an excellent example of the type of dogma-
based thinking that ignores common sense in favor of
blind belief.
By TheProphetNabob, July 17, 2011 at 4:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“I don’t want to present myself as a fur-hugging animal rights activist.”
But you are, Blanche, you are.
I don’t know (nor care) what your personal grudge is against the subjects of this film (which I don’t even care about), but the stench of it permeates this “review.”
Report thisBy theotherjimmyolson, July 16, 2011 at 10:15 am Link to this comment
@Anacissie, Your absolutely correct,but some things are better left unsaid. If you won’t read between the lines I can’t help you.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, July 16, 2011 at 10:01 am Link to this comment
theotherjimmyolson—Your answer doesn’t really explain your scorn and derision. It is true that the subject of the present story wasn’t treated as badly as a food or lab animal, but it was certainly abused in a fairly stupid way. Due, I think, to the same lack of respect and sympathy which enables the monumentally worse things done to food and lab animals.
Report thisBy theotherjimmyolson, July 16, 2011 at 8:53 am Link to this comment
@ Mollie J That is one of the most important unasked question of the culture we have erected. Not can we do it, but should we do it, and one I ask myself all the time.
Report thisBy theotherjimmyolson, July 16, 2011 at 8:49 am Link to this comment
@ Anarcissie, I don’t consider the example at issue a notable instance of animal cruelty,but a misquided attempt in the search for knowledge. For me intent plays a major role in how I view these things. That aside, when I look around at the world I live in, this kind of thing is way down on the list of things i am concerned about. Your mileage may vary.
Report thisBy MollyJ, July 16, 2011 at 5:38 am Link to this comment
It sounds like this is an interesting film and one I might Netflix.
This seems to be a good study in the statement of, “Just because we can, doesn’t mean we ought to.”
I know that some people will find this comparison difficult but I think we do a similar thing to people when we utilize high tech medical care on certain chronically ill people. I once interacted with a family that had a ventilator dependent child with a musle dystrophy. He had been on a vent since before his first birthday and was in early elementary school when I met him. Except for medical visits and hospitalizations, he lived his life in a hospital bed in the family room of his household. He could not effectively communicate. He had no real gross or fine motor function. Don’t get me wrong, the family was loving and worked very hard for this child but it was grotesque to watch. A profound disconnect from the child’s reality and the purpose of family for the other children in the family.
At all times we need to ask Why are we doing this? What are the ethical dilemmas we might forecast? How much of “my” ego is at stake here? What about the person that this is being done to? These are not easy questions to answer but it is surely true that we must look back at how these experiments work out and ask ourselves the questions over and over.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, July 15, 2011 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment
You think being concerned about cruelty to animals is ludicrously sentimental?
Report thisBy theotherjimmyolson, July 15, 2011 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment
Wait, let me get out my tiny violin.
Report thisBy dailyplanet, July 13, 2011 at 12:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Mr. Schickel’s review is more than too gracious to the perpetrators of this
animal abuse. I’ve not seen this documentary, but have read about it in detail.
These so-called academicians wrested this chimp from his mother in infancy
and basically used him as a plaything, for their own amusement. Never mind
their pretensions of scientific merit or that they even convinced themselves this
was a research project.
The chimp smoked marijuana with them. This was their attempt to raise him as
a human being??? He was handed to different people and finally ended up in a
university research laboratory where he was one of many animals used for
experiments. He was rescued from this facility and ended his life in some type
of sanctuary where at age 27, succumbed to a heart attack.
This is a tragic story of human hubris and in no way worthy of humanity itself.
Report thisBy GoyToy, July 13, 2011 at 11:18 am Link to this comment
gods R US
Report thisBy Emeric, July 12, 2011 at 6:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
This piece is sad. I mean sad that it has been posted
here, sad that a human being is given the space to
continue to project incredibly ignorant views of non-
human animal communication, sad that the editors of
truthdig didn’t have the brains or will to call this
piece for what it is, a farce of an opinion which
continues to perpetuate behavioral myths.
Dumb animals…
Report thisBy kerryrose, July 12, 2011 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment
‘What ever made anyone think they could communicate except for (non-human) arrogance?’
Are you seriously suggesting that non-humans do not communicate? Language is communication. All non-human animals have ‘language,’ but to expect them to have human language is arrogant and absurd.
Report thisBy Ben C, July 12, 2011 at 12:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
This is all nonsense. I looked at this study while studying psychology at university. What these researchers did is not science at all. They took an animal that is not human (duh) and tried to pretend it was. Suspension of disbelief cannot even last past the abstract of the paper. Incidentally this case is taken as symptomatic of the problem with attempts at getting animals to “speak” (not just communicate) with humans. It doesn’t work not because they have not been socialized with humans, but because they are NOT humans. No speaking brain, no language apparatus (brain or larynx) etc. What ever made anyone think they could communicate except for (non-human) arrogance?
Report thisBy SarcastiCanuck, July 12, 2011 at 11:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Well,luckily the pentagon didn’t get him and turn him into some Special Ops Killer Chimp for jungle warfare.
Report thisBy Hulk2008, July 12, 2011 at 7:09 am Link to this comment
It is the nature of animals to interact with their environment - the human animal is no exception. We tinker with other species AS IF we know what we are doing. And we blythely, ignorantly tinker with the environment and other people.
As the Limelighters used to sing, “What nature doesn’t do to us…. will be done by our fellow man.”
Report thisBy Anarcissie, July 12, 2011 at 5:30 am Link to this comment
Richard Schickel: ‘... I don’t want to present myself as a fur-hugging animal rights activist. ...’
Yes, God forbid. Thankfully you have pulled yourself back from the yawning abyss.
Report thisBy kerryrose, July 12, 2011 at 4:34 am Link to this comment
What a bad review. Purporting to support the animals against their human abusers, the reviewer actually descends into ‘animals are just beasts’ language. The chimps aggressive behavior is coined as ‘a wild beast that doesn’t belong in polite society instead of as an act of resistance.
I suggest the the reviewer read ‘Fear of the Animal Planet, the hidden history of animal resistance’ by Jason Hribal to learn to speak in a more enlightened way.
Report thisBy gerard, July 11, 2011 at 11:05 pm Link to this comment
Speaking of “marching into a disturbing moral abyss”—historically, human beings are the master of this antic. Of course this all comes from their having “morals” which serves to put a curb on instinct. (Thou shalt. Thou shalt not, etc.)
Which involves thinking about things—this, or that? Anticipating probabiities.
Most decisions are made on the basis of experience:
I’ll choose this because it’s what I’ve been taught in the past. I even believe it to be the “lesser of two evils.”
Dut to our devotion to habit, our reluctance to imagine and experiment, the third (or fourth) alternative is passed over. Shall I try something different? I wonder what would happen if ...
Only when a new alternative absolutely must be invented because the old ways have become anachronistic and counterproductive, will we break habituated behavior. The young people in the Middle East are miles ahead of us. If they are successful, we will find ourselves quite obviously dysfunctional.
Report thisThe signs are already in the tea leaves.