Donna Hefton
Anthropomorphism: an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics: HumanizationAnthropopathism: the ascription of human feelings to something not human
(Source: Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary)The great debate over anthropomorphism still rages on. In articles, interviews, and conversation, individuals are still apologizing by making the statement; "I don't want to be anthropomorphic here, but...". Existing in a culture that has accepted a religion based on man's superiority over animals, both intellectually and emotionally, has led us to the conclusion that mankind alone is capable of thought, emotion, and intellect. Primitive cultures have and presently include a variety of animal species in their religious rights and ceremonies. With our scientific guidelines it has become abhorrent to suggest that an animal of any species may possess any human characteristics such as thought or feelings. And our present generations are even more confused having grown up with those stunningly beautiful Walt Disney epics that routinely give more than their fair share of human characteristics to animals. More recent study of higher animal species is revealing that perhaps there is more to the intellectual and emotional lives of these species than we had first estimated.
A Greek philosopher, Xenophanes (6th cen.B.C.) used dogs and horses in his example of how we as a species look at our god. To paraphrase his concept using parrots as an example it would have been stated something like this: If a bird could draw a picture of god it would draw a BIRD. Man conceptualizes god in the image of man. Whether Xenophanes met with controversy over his dog and pony statement, I'm not sure, but Charles Darwin certainly received his lumps. The scientific circles of the day were elated over Darwin's natural selection theories. The 'survival of the fittest' theory was a direct link to man's superiority over the natural world. That theory was a big hit. The popularity of Darwin diminished when he published The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. The very idea of animals having the ability to express emotions, or even possessing emotion, was enough to send the scientific community into a panic. In our recent memory we have Dr. Louis Leakey, the famous anthropologist, who sent a young English woman into Tanzania to study chimpanzees. Jane Goodall gave the world the earth-shattering news that the primate that we viewed as peaceful and leaf-eating were actually violent, murdering, and meat eating individuals. They also made and used tools which excited Leakey into pushing for more research funding for the study. Jane Goodall had no scientific training when she went out to study her chimpanzees and, not knowing any better, she named them. She looked at them as individuals and was as anthropomorphic as you or I would have been. The work she has accomplished in the past thirty years has made mankind change his view of himself in relation to other species.
Anyone in a personal relationship with a parrot is doomed to being anthropomorphic and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If you are involved with scientific data collection involving an animal, you must avoid it like the plague. Science does not appreciate anthropomorphism. In science you must number or letter your animal subjects in field or lab study. You are not allowed to infer emotion on an animal subject. If an animal is angry you must report that it 'appears agitated' or 'aggressive'. In dealing with parrots on an intimate level we should be grateful that we are removed from these guidelines. After all, we are involved with the only animal that can communicate with us in our own language! I feel that parrots are extremely sentient creatures possessing a full range of emotions and thought processes beyond the mere instinctive patterns. Perhaps if I didn't share my life with them I would be of another opinion entirely. When my birds are appropriate in their communication with me or each other, using human language, I MUST be of the opinion that they are relating to events on an intellectual level. After acquiring a Timneh (Psittacus erithacus timneh) I would take him to the bathroom mirror and say, "Let's go see the pretty Birdie in the mirror." He liked the event so he picked up the language skill. This bird would use this phrase inappropriately, practicing with it at no particular time or schedule of the day. I thought, "Okay, he's parroting that phrase." One afternoon, as the sun was setting he saw his shadow projected on the wall, made a 'kiss' sound and said, "pretty Birdie in the mirror." He equated his shadow with his reflection and, using the only language skills available to him, was able to form a concept. This observation convinced me beyond any doubt that these animals are able to use language appropriately.
Okay, some parrots are able to use language appropriately, but let's not discount the use of body language. My Amazona o. aurapaliata has never been a brilliant conversationalist, but neither is she ever inappropriate in her communication. Her limited vocabulary is used correctly. What she has been able to master in her lack of ability to converse is her remarkable ability to use posture and body language to indicate what she wants and where she wants to go. She has taught me and I respond. Have you ever considered not talking in a parrot as a form of communication? I would not have thought so until I had the wings clipped on the Timneh and he stopped talking for eleven and a half days. He would just sit on his tree and beat his wings looking at me with something going on behind those eyes. Not a single word, beep, or whistle for eleven days! The wing-beating was his method of communication at his complete displeasure of his current situation. I don't want to be anthropomorphic here, but...oh, spare me! It was more than obvious that he was upset by this.
Top Next Page
 NetPets® Main Page |  The Bird Center |