How do we make sense of what animals are up to and our interactions with them? How should we go about answering these kinds of questions? This is what is explored in a 2016 book by Associate Professor of Philosophy of Science Vinciane Despret. The book is broken up into 26 individual stories, one for each letter of the alphabet. They're very aptly described by Bruno Latour as; "scientific fables, by which I don’t mean science fiction or false stories about science but, on the contrary, true ways of understanding how difficult it is to figure out what animals are up to." Some of my favorite chapters included; "B for Beasts", "C for Corporeal", "H for Hierarchies", "L for Laboratory", "Q for Queer" and “W for Work”.
Throughout many of the fables, Despret examines the ideas and motivations behind our anthropomorphism of animals. More specifically though, the push-back animal researchers receive from a large portion of the scientific community when they are perceived to be interpreting their conclusions with an anthropomorphic lens. Her goal in the book as I understood it to be, is to widen our conception of what should count as evidence when trying to make sense of not just animal behavior, but animal life as a whole.
Two of the central themes of the book are Depret’s critical examination of anthropomorphism and the laboratory as a source of knowledge production. With direct influence from Sociologist of Science Bruno Latour, Despret points to a certain irony that some researchers condemn any form of anthropocentric research. For example the very act of making mice run through a maze for Despret can be seen as imposing human-centric motivations and activities onto the mice in question. Her conclusion, even in the laboratory setting, one cannot help be anthropocentric, and this is not necessarily a bad thing.
Are we not cut from the same cloth as other animals? Should we not expect that we share some kind of mutual phenomenological ontology? In other words, should the same kinds of explanations we use to describe human behavior not be at least similar to those we use for animals, especially those who are genetically similar? These explanations might include the effects of emotion, aesthetic taste and even moral conviction.
This is not to say that demonstrating an animals moral code would be an easy thing to do. It wouldn't. But to not even have those kinds of explanations on the table when discussing animal behavior does a disservice to animal research.
Related to the critique of anthropomorphism Despret draws our attention to the term “anecdote” and how this term is used to dismiss the lived experiences of people who spend their whole lives with animals, but may not be part of the scientific community. These include farmers, breeders, trainers, pet owners, etc. She argues that these individuals are privy to a different facet of animal life than can be found in the lab and that they might end up being useful to science only if they are allowed to have a seat at the table.
Despret also sets her sight's on the scientific goal of generalization. That the goal of science is to construct general laws from a large enough set of certain particular examples. A concern is that there are strong rules in scientific communities (implicit or otherwise) as to what counts as an appropriate particular case, often for good reason, but sometimes not so (remember the farmers?).
Furthermore, Despret also argues for a stronger worry against generalization, since biology, unlike maybe physics, is virtually at its core a contingent phenomena. One can argue, and she does, that understanding of animals can only be done on a case by case basis, and the focus on finding generalizations leads us down reductionist paths that obfuscates more than they illuminates.
There are a number of places in this book where the fact of its translation from french to English comes to the forefront. The first comes quite early in the book where in the original french the word 'bete' is used extensively. In English it can be most directly translated to 'beast' which it is, however in french there is also a double meaning in which 'bete' can also be taken to mean 'stupid' or 'dumb'. As you could probably guess this leaves open the possibility for a lot of wordplay in French regarding the perceived intelligence of these animals which is unfortunately lost when translated to English.
There's a notable section in which Despret quotes a pair of English speaking researchers. She draws attention to the particular language they use in an article. What is notable is that since this text was originally in french, but I read the English version, Despret makes comments about translating English words into french, which is then subsequently all translated back into English... It's a bit of a mind bending section when you read it but acts as a highlight for the complexity of grammar and language in general.
Finally, just recently, the fantastic podcast Radiolab released an episode that tackles similar themes to the ones discussed in the book (though not discussed here). Specifically, surrounding the idea of animals recognizing beauty, and how that shifts the conventional ideas surrounding natural selection. I highly recommend checking it out, and if you find it interesting then consider getting a copy of Despret's book for more.
This book was a delightful romp through the animal world and will kindle a new appreciation for the animals we take for granted. It sure did for me.