"Do Chimpanzees Have Culture?"

“Do Chimpanzees Have Culture?”

The question “do chimpanzees have culture?” has been debated throughout the world. Many Anthropologists and scientists believe that this question is problematic because nobody really knows what culture is. So what is culture and what determines it?

Russell Tuttle believes that “symbolism is a defining aspect of culture.” However, Victoria Horner believes that it is the “transmission of behaviour by non-genetic means.”

These two examples of culture are completely different from each other. They both try and portray, and come up with an answer to what culture could be, but neither of them really hit the target; they aren't detailed enough to say what culture is. Therefore, if both try and portray culture, and if both are technically correct – because nobody really knows how to define it – then can there be more than one type of culture?

I believe that culture is the product of manipulation within ourselves by social, historical, environmental and biological factors.

Furthermore, taking my definition of culture and Horner's, it is easy to see that culture can be learnt.

Through observation of our own young, we know that children imitate to learn. They copy actions, sentence patterns and so on from their parents or from the people around them to stimulate brain development. This is called the Social Learning Theory (SLT).

For there to be culture, ideas and a way of life have to be passed on to the future generations. This culture has to be learnt. We've noticed that animals teach each other all the time. It has been seen that parent animals try to teach their young, e.g. A domesticated Bitch teaching her pup to climb up and down the stairs.

We've also witnessed teaching behaviours in Chimpanzees.

Sanz and Morgan of the Max Planck Institute observed Chimpanzees in the wild using and making tools. They observed one Chimpanzee breaking a hole into a Termite mound and then creating a brush-like stick by fraying the end to prod into the hole. This collected 10 times as many Termites. They then observed other Chimpanzees replicating this method. This is a SLT example. The first Chimpanzee noticed that this method was more beneficial than the former method – it produced 10 times as much Termites, and then taught the others, or the others imitated this method. The whole group would soon adopt this method, therefore it would pass throughout the group and throughout the group's generations. How could this not be culture?

It is clear that as Human beings, we have symbols which have another meaning. Tuttle believes that “symbolism is a defining aspect of culture”, therefore we have culture. However, can Chimpanzees show understanding of symbols and recognize their meanings?

Charlotte Uhlenbroek also observed another easier method of producing more food. She observed Chimpanzees cracking nuts open with two different stones, one used as a hammer and one used as an anvil. She noticed the others replicating this procedure – even the young. She theorised that the young did not know why they were doing it but followed to gain a sense of “identity and belonging.” This suggests that the two stones used to crack the nuts open were chosen, rather than just picked up off of the ground. The stones would have to have specific characteristic to be able to be used correctly. Thus, the Chimpanzees would have had to think about it, therefore these rocks have meaning.

Tuttle does not believe that Chimpanzees could have culture. He believes that the Chimpanzees did not realize or show understanding that the rocks had meaning. He stays that “If they were doing it because that rock and that nut and anvil represented something, then it would be culture.” However, the rocks had to have meant something – even if it was a 'primitive' thought like 'more food.' It is possible that a Chimpanzee could find two similar rocks again and recognize that they both mean easy, and more food. So these types of rocks have to be symbols of 'easy to get' and 'more food.' Therefore, if they are symbols, this supports the idea that Chimpanzees have culture.

Another study also provides support of the idea that Chimpanzees have culture. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh from Georgia University shows Panbanisha – a Chimpanzee – link written symbols with certain heard words and whom can show understanding of word order to follow orders to give something to someone. The fact that Panbanisha can understand the symbols which she uses to make sentences and understand word prompts is an indication that Chimpanzees can understand symbolism. For example, the word 'egg' is a flower picture. We'd expect that the symbol for an egg would be an egg, however this is not the case – it is a flower. She recognizes the picture 'flower' means the term 'egg'. This is abstract thinking. Panbanisha knows language which a four year old human would. The flower represented 'egg' - this shows symbolism. Language was taught to her. All of this suggests the idea that Chimpanzees have culture.

On the other hand, Tuttle and Bennett Galef believe that Chimpanzees do not have culture. They avoid the world “culture” when describing Chimpanzees' behaviours. “If you want to call what Chimpanzees have culture, then we'll have to find a new word for what it is humans have, because they're just totally different from each other,” says Galef, “It's reflected in the fact that we're building cathedrals and walking on the Moon, and they still sit naked in the rain.”

There are disagreements for what it is called, and that there is a lack of data.

“You want to call it culture? Fine, I'll call it learned behaviour patterns.”

It's true. What Chimpanzees have is learned behaviour, but we also learn behaviour and call it 'culture'! There is an assured primitivity to what Chimpanzees have, but the fact that there is a likeness to what we have cannot go ignored.

Another strong case to prove that Chimpanzees have culture is Franz De Waal's and Andy Whitten's study to see if Chimpanzees have culture. Horner is also involved with this experiment. They show us a machine containing M&Ms. The machine has two different release methods. The two chosen Chimpanzees are taught how to release the M&Ms differently. One is taught to lift the releaser and the other is taught to push the releaser to release the M&Ms. They then were placed back into their separate packs. They observed the two Chimpanzees showing the others how to release the M&Ms the way they were taught to. (This supports social manipulation as being a feature of culture and the SLT.) This automatically separates them into different communities with different cultures. The way they were told to release the M&Ms was passed throughout the two groups – they inadvertently created two different cultures by passing that information on, which shows their capacity for culture.

In conclusion, I believe that Chimpanzees do have a culture. This culture is definitely more primitive and simple than our own which has adapted overtime to become a more meaningful and detailed representation of the manipulation of social, historical, environmental and biological factors within ourselves.

Chimpanzees are only going to be able to have a simpler culture than our own because we are more advanced than them. However what they have is still a culture due to the fact that they pass on beneficial information they have learnt to other Chimpanzees: The Sanz and Morgan Chimpanzees which developed a more sufficient way of getting Termites, Charlotte Uhlenbroek's Chimpanzees cracking nuts open and their young imitating, Sue Savage-Runbaug's Chimpanzee – Panbanisha - understanding and recognizing sentence patterns and symbols, and Franz De Waal, Andy Whiten and Victoria Horner's Chimanzees separating their communities and producing two new cultures by releasing M&Ms.  

“Are all people the same across the world?”

“Are all people the same across the world?”

I believe that people have certain unities – certain characteristics and qualities shared all over the world – which makes us similar. By comparing English people and their culture with Japanese people and their culture, I can show you how similar everyone is.

Firstly, Language plays a large part in who we are, what makes us the same, and what defines us as different.
The English language only has one alphabet. We form words up by clustering the letters of the alphabet together to form a sentence. Unlike the English language, the Japanese one makes sentences using sounds, characters, and not letters. However, both types of sentences portray what we are thinking and feeling – it doesn't matter how they were formed or what language they were said in. And, unlike English, Japanese has three alphabets: Kanji, Hiragana and Katakana.
The origin of Japanese is considerably disputed among scholars. Many believe that when the Chinese migrated to Japan, they brought their own language with them, giving Japan Kanji. The Japanese then adapted their language over time, adding the Hiragana alphabet for their own Japanese words. Katakana followed for loan words, taken from other countries' languages and changed to fit the sounds that they make. Examples of this is the Japanese word for bread , 'Pan', originating from the Spanish word for bread, 'Pan', and the Japanese word for Ice-cream, originating from the English language, 'Aisucuri-mu.'
Thus, majority of the Japanese language is actually borrowed. However, this is the same for the English language as well.
English is said to originate from West Germany: Anglo-Frisian dialects brought to Britain by Germanic invaders. It was also a diverse group of dialects with varied origins of Anglo-Saxon, including Late West Saxon.
The English language has even borrowed words from Japanese: 'Karate', 'Tsunami,' 'Karaoke' and 'Sumo ' etc.
Therefore, how we portray what we are thinking through speech and literature/writing may be different from anyone other language, the thoughts and feelings conveyed will be the same.
We also portray what we are thinking through non-verbal communication. Hand gestures are commonly used to convey simple messages. Waving to say hello is known throughout the world. The Yuki et al study of 2007, proved that cultures interpret body language and facial gestures differently from each other. When investigating, they found that the Americans looked more towards the mouth to determine someone's feelings, whilst the Japanese looked towards the eyes. This could be due towards culture difference. Where the Americans were free to communicate their feelings, it was frowned upon in Japan. Therefore, the Japanese adapted to portray what they were feeling by using their eyes.
Again, a message which means the same can be conveyed to mean the same but with slightly different expressions/actions.

Secondly, Symbolism unites us in many ways. In every language there are words that mean the same, or have loose meaning. Symbolism is when an image or figure has another respected meaning. The imagery may be diverse in different culture, however the meaning will still remain the same, which ultimately unifies us. Lets take, for example, a well known English symbol of peace, the Tudor Rose and a Japanese symbol for peace, the Crane. These two images are extremely different from each other. So how do these two images mean the same?
It's all down to culture and historical differences. The Tudor Rose came around during the Tudor dynasty. It bonded the warring Yorkists and Lancastrians during the War of the Roses, and adopted the symbol of peace. In Japanese history, the Crane became the symbol of peace from the popularisation of the story about Sadako Sasaki – a two year old girl who died because of the after effects of the Atomic bomb that hit Hiroshima in 1945. An old Japanese myth tells that if you fold 1000 paper cranes, the holder will be granted a wish by the gods. It is said that Sadako only folded 644.
These symbols of peace are significantly different because of their imagery, however the way they came about are relatively similar. Both were brought during warring periods and both act as symbols to prevent these situations from happening again, and to remember what had been.

Finally, there is a larger role to play that unifies us all: it is the fact that we have Kinship.
Family roles are much the same in both English and Japanese households. Both in England and Japan, there is a traditional role for the housewife to play – that is to take care of everyone in the family and clean. There is no time for work. This is, however, more traditional and looked towards in Japan than England, but both countries do have the same idea of what a housewife should do. Typically, it is the man who is the money and rule maker.
It is becoming more common that marriages start to deteriorate. When interviewed by Karen Kelsky, Nagata Mitsuko said this about dating an American man: 'But in Japan, from long ago, after marriage you just become a 'wife'. So girls instinctively know that before marriage is their only chance to really shine. The same is true of men, of course, but once you get married, there's nothing left. You live together, but there's no romance. You can't hope for romance in marriage.' I believe that this is the same for people everywhere – that they have rushed into or been forced into a marriage they do not want, therefore there has been a lower success rate in marriages, and the reason and meaning behind a marriage has been transformed over the years into something people don't really understand.
This can also be said of relationships outside of marriage. Cultures have different views on what a perfect relationship should look like, how you should behave and what should be involved in one. 'Japanese society, and Japanese men, are bad at 'performing,' you know, at showing a woman a good time, escorting her, speaking sweetly to her. They're very bad at taking care of her. So the women are much more advanced in that sense. They want to have freedom to have fun, but Japanese men are no good at that, and Japanese society doesn't permit it.' Whereas the Japanese are more selfless about their relationships, the English aren't (this could be generalised to other cultures too). Males in England have an expectation to fulfil – where they sweep their princesses off their feet and ride off into the sunset. Naturally, because of this idea, men in England are always looking to be the guy every female wants to date.
It seems like these two examples are totally different: Japanese males are more shy, thus the relationships are more modest, where English males are expected to be Prince Charming and the relationships are more tantalizing. However, they are not. We can look at both and say they are different, but we can look at them and say they are the same.
It is an evolutionary trait programmed into us to reproduce and pass on our genes. For this to happen there needs to be a partnership. These marriages and relationships are attempts to make the situation more domesticated. In every country, city, town and village, this is happening all the time.

In conclusion, all people across the world are the same by: communicating, using symbolism, and having families/marriages/relationships. These examples happen all over the world, not just in one culture. This unifies us. We may not be the same, carbon-copies of each other, our principals and morals may differ, our appearances and cultures are diverse, but the fundamentals of what makes us human are the same.