The Naked Ape: A Zoologist's Study Of The Human Animal (1999) - Plot & Excerpts
Morris makes a great song and dance about the 'outrage' with which his book was first received. Why are people so resistant to contemplating, in the cool light of scientific 'objectivity', their 'animal nature', he asks. However, Morris' claim to neutrality is highly suspect; he urges us to learn from and accept the picture he presents of human beings, sayinghomo sapiens has remained a naked ape... in acquiring lofty new motives, he has lost none of the earthy old ones. This is frequently a cause of embarrassment to him, but his old impulses have been with him for millions of years, his new ones only a few thousand at the most - and there is no hope of shrugging off the accumulated genetic legacy of his evolutionary past. He would be a far less worried and more fulfilled animal if he would face up to this factHe contrasts the biological view with that of anthropologists, whose methods he treats with derision, since they have tended to give attention to exceptional, often fairly isolated societies. His comments on this subject are not encouraging.The simple tribal groups that are living today are not primitive, they are stultified... the naked ape is essentially an exploratory species and any society that has failed to advance has in some sense failedThis amounts to a ringing endorsement for imperialist appropriation and hegemony. He compares such 'biological failures' with 'the ordinary successful members of the major cultures'.As well as anthropologists, he has issues with psychologists who have, laudably(!) stuck to 'mainstream specimens' but these have unfortunately been 'aberrant or failed... in some respect' he quotes an unnamed practitioner from the field in question approvingly 'We have tackled the abnormals and we are only now beginning, a little late in the day, to concentrate on the normals'. Apparently this horrifically ableist language is unproblematic because we are dealing with the human animal as a mere meaty hunk of biological data here, not with personhood.As usual, my heckles are raised by the use of the male pronoun for humans in general, and I usually try hard to make allowances for old-fashioned conventions here, but in this case 'he' is indicative of Morris' stance. His naked ape is a male and his lifestyle is characteristic of the species and shaped its evolution. He describes how males became hunters and thus developed sophisticated cooperative, communicative and planning skills. There must be something missing from this picture, as female humans have equally well-developed abilities in these areas and they are strictly excluded from hunting in Morris' account. Perhaps child-rearing, which they are credited with, made equal demands, but in that case why is hunting the primary influence rather than infantilism and childcare?On the fascinating subject of how homo sapiens became hairless (I prefer this description to Morris' term 'naked' which he claims is neutral, but obviously connotes clothing), he outlines various theories. I'm most interested in the aquatic ape hypothesis, and keen to read about it next, but Morris favours a hunting-related hypothesis, which leaves the hairlessness of female humans unexplained. Morris' fondness for hunting is much in evidence, in the lack of mention afforded to the food gathering practices of our (probably mainly female) ancestors, description of carnivores vs omnivorous primates, his derision for vegetarians, and most importantly in his description of work as the direct modern analogue of hunting. Thus, women ought not to work/hunt; their 'biologically correct' place is at home caring for the young. All-male clubs and sporting activities are obvious extensions of the need to hunt. I'm grateful to Morris for thereby explaining why women have no interest in sports, athletic pursuits or group socialising activities.This book apparently caused much offence with its 'frank' descriptions of sexual activity. Morris admits these are based on studies in North America, but claims this is fine because 'that culture' is 'biologically large and successful' and therefore 'representative of the naked ape' in general. Morris' account of intercourse is clinical and anyone hoping for stimulation had much better check out the erotica section. Most novels are far sexier (and infinitely more enjoyable on every other level too). What offends me is his unabashedly homophobic stance. He explains homosexual behaviour, which must be 'normal' since all mammals engage in it, as adolescent exploration and an inevitable consequence of young people spending time in unisexual groups 'such as boys schools' but long-term homosexuality is an 'aberrant' 'fixation'. Grudgingly he admits that 'permanent homosexuals' are 'valuable non-contributors' in the present context of the current population explosion, which he regards as a serious coming crisis (so yeah, a Malthusian too).These regressive views on sexuality were commonplace when Morris wrote the book in 1967, but when he was invited to update it in 1994, he saw no reason to change anything but the figure he originally gave for the size of the population. Man's [sic] essential biological nature can change only over evolutionary time scales, he might say. And there's the rub. Morris is an essentialist, for whom biology is destiny. However hard we try to 'twist' and 'distort' our true nature, we will keep returning to the animal truth.This position has generally been rejected by philosophers and social scientists, with good reason. Since zoology is a field of study undertaken by socialised humans, its premises are culturally constructed and determined. I am not trying to deny physical reality or suggest that nothing can be learned from research, but we can't seriously talk about 'facts' isolated from culture, as Morris tries to do. The simple example of his account of taste sensation is instructive. He repeats the 'fact' that we detect four tastes and the 'fact' that different parts of the tongue are sensitive to each of them. Both of these 'facts' are wrong - they are mistaken interpretations which other cultures have not shared. This reminds me of a lecture I once heard, in which we were asked to state the number of our senses. Pliny said five, and it's become a cultural commonplace, but that's all it is. Consider the sense of 'touch', in our five-sense framing made to cover hot/cold, pain, proprioception and contact detection...Morris says that as his book is intended for popular consumption it would be silly to include references. Except on the rare occasions when he actually indicates that 'research has shown' etc, I have to assume that this book is educated speculation. His procedure is to reverse-engineer primitive humans based on a white male North American interpretation of what is observed in the species today, supplementing this with our knowledge of prehistoric environmental conditions, the famously patchy fossil record and comparisons with primates and predators. And why not? The effort is worthy and the results interesting, though I believe they have been much-contested since first published. Where Morris oversteps the mark is in attempting to apply his picture of our ancestors, gained from studying modern humans, to show us modern humans where we are going wrong. Call me culturally indoctrinated Morris, but I think that's called circular reasoning.Morris claims that he wants us to embrace our biological nature, and poses the zoological perspective as ideologically neutral, but it's obvious that as well as homophobia, misogyny and racist imperialism, this book is drenched in the ideology of 'biological morality', the agenda of the gene. My genes regard me as an instrument for their replication, and everything else I do (and feel and think) is irrelevant to them. Their motive is identical to the motive of a virus. My glorious birthright, as a human being, is the ability to choose otherwise.
When I stumbled across this book last week and promptly down-loaded it to my kindle, I did not realize it had been first published in 1967. Some of the views are decidedly antiquated. For example that men go to work in attempt to satisfy the hunting urge together with other men, while women stay at home and take care of the children. In most of the Scandinavian countries, as large a percentage of women as men are now an active part of the work force. The superficial treatment of homosexuality and religion isn't anywhere near satisfying either. However, when this book was written, homosexuality was still considered a disease, so I presume this book calling this "aberrant" is the least that can be expected. The theories presented here on why we are naked are exactly the same as I read in a newer publication I read recently: we lost our hair due to parasites (because less hair meant less parasites) or because we were semi-acquatic for a time being. This book draws no final conclusion on this subject. One of the points I liked best in this book was this "When you put a name on a door, or hang a painting on a wall, you are, in dog or wolf terms, for example, simply cocking your leg on them and leaving your personal mark there". A few years ago I was feeling insecure at work and I promptly put a painting on the wall and pictures on my desk - very consciously marking my territory. Come to think of it, this is the only office I have ever felt the need to "own" in this way.Despite being somewhat old-fashioned I enjoyed this approach to the human animal. It's not completely outdated yet and well worth reading.Another point that made me think was this "Those members of a community who are either very successfull or socially well adjusted rarely suffer from 'grooming invitation ailments'". By this the author means minor illnesses that only just require a visit to the doctor and the care of a spouse or friends (colds, laryngitis and such). In my current work where everyone has a rather high socio-economic status, we are all startingly healthy. Before, when I held a job at the bottom-end of the hierarchy, people where ill of little things ALL the time. So maybe there is some truth in the author's statement, however controversial it may be.
What do You think about The Naked Ape: A Zoologist's Study Of The Human Animal (1999)?
I suppose all reviews of this book must open up with the fact that it is dated - considerably. Many of the speculations and theories put forward in the text have since fallen out of favor or been outright dismissed. But as with all science books from an older era, this is not the important part! The questions and insights raised about human nature far outweigh any omissions due to the inadequate science of the times.What one can find fault with is several arguments and generalizations made about culture that the author roots in 'historical' evidence. During the chapter on sexual practices and habits of humans, the author essentially shrugs and assumes that pair bonding, sexual behavior, and all the quirks that we have today has always been practiced the way our parents and their parents had done it. This is untrue, as the family unit and gender roles have changed throughout history. The author ascribes changes in sexual practices and gender roles as something modern - a sign that we have outgrown our biology. This simply is not true. Our environment has changed and our biology is simply shifting into a gear not visited for generations. The idea of family planning and restricted birth is not a product of the industrial revolution, but something that can be traced back (both as a popular and detested idea depending on the environment) all the way back to ancient Egypt.That one gripe aside, the remainder of the book succeeds in keeping major cultural biases out of its attempt to do most of us avoid: viewing human beings as an animal. While certainly not the definitive text on the subject, for someone who wants a quick introduction to a combination of human biology and anthropology, I would highly recommend this book.
—Brian
People are animals. Our behavior has evolutionary roots-- even many behaviors we define as cultural have their basis in our prehistoric dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-sexiest past.There, that's the thesis-- perfectly sound and very interesting. The book falls apart in the details though-- sweeping generalizations and odd assumptions about sexual behavior and gender roles and cultural supremacy without any supporting proof. Just ideas and theories that seem almost comically colored by the author's dated biases.His ideas sometimes lean dangerously towards social Darwinism-- minority cultures with "bizarre" practices are aberrations in human evolution, and their behaviors can be dismissed as irrelevant to the discussion of human behavior. The majority's (he means White Northern Europeans, not East Asians, of course) cultural practices represent the evolutionarily successful norm. I am intrigued by the mythical, biological and prehistoric roots of human behavior-- like the story that men are silent because their prehistoric ancestors needed to hunt mastadons with stealth, while women are chatty thanks to their communal berry-gathering ancestresses. Maybe that's ridiculous-- I want to read a book that presents and backs up these theories with actual data. So, not this book.
—Rebecca
One doesn't pick up this sort of book looking to 'get off' but let me tell you (!) the opening chapters on sexuality are very arousing. I had to stop reading and satisfy my er, appetite several times before moving on to the next chapters. If only to stimulate yourself without anyone catching on--or while posing as erudite or whatever-- this book is terrific.Otherwise, sure he makes many interesting points about the biological basis for certain of our human tendencies--and I appreciate his attempting to coherently draw a line between the biological and the cultural--but there is this creeping morality underlying much of what he talks about particularly towards the middle and end of the book that is off-putting.Definitely something you can take into the tub and finish in an hour or so (as long as you're not counting the times you'll put it down to masturbate).
—Xio
