El zoo humano

The Naked Ape Trilogy #2

by Desmond Morris, Adolfo Martín (Translator)

Desmond Morris –autor del célebre libro El mono desnudo- analiza la sociedad que el mono desnudo ha creado y compara al hombre civilizado con su equivalente, el animal cautivo. En condiciones naturales, el animal salvaje, entre otras cosas, no se mutila a sí mismo, no ataca a su prole, no tiene úlcera de estómago, no es fetichista, no padece obesidad ni estrés. Sin embargo, en cautiverio muestra conductas semejantes a las del hombre urbano enjaulado en sus agobiantes ciudades. Por lo tanto, es inexacta la expresión «jungla de asfalto», acuñada por el propio hombre para describir su propio medio ambiente. Resulta más adecuado designarlo como «zoo humanos»… Un lúcido y corrosivo análisis de los desvaríos y atrocidades que el hombre practica en una sociedad condenada a la autodestrucción.

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Psychology, Anthropology, Sociology, Biology, Evolution

203 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1969

About the author

Desmond John Morris (24 January 1928 - 19 April 2026) was an English zoologist, ethologist and surrealist painter, as well as a popular author in human sociobiology.
He is known for his 1967 book The Naked Ape, and for his television programmes such as Zoo Time.

After the death of his wife in 2018 he lived with his son and family in Ireland. Morris died in Naas, County Kildare, on 19 April 2026, at the age of 98.

abridged from Wikipedia

Reviews

[KamRun · Rating 4 out of 5]

در نهایت صرف نظر از اینکه ما چه اقدامی بکنیم، چیزی برای کاستن تراز جمعیت انسانی به میان خواهد آمد. حالا و در این لحظه ما فرصتی برای انتخاب داریم، می توانیم کار را به تصادف واگذار کنیم یا آنکه بکوشیم خود بر اوضاع مسلط شویم. پیشگیری از علاج بهتر است و اگر چیزی قرار است نابود شود، ترجیح می‌دهم اسپرم و تخمک باشد تا انسان‌هایی رشدیافته و متفکر

درباره‌ی کتاب

دزموند موریس در کتاب قبلی خود به اصل و ریشه نوع انسان پرداخته و از عنوان کتاب، میمون برهنه، مشخص است به چه نقطه‌ای رسیده. این موضوع که انسان اولیه و نئاندرتال نوعی میمون تکامل یافته‌ست حرف جدیدی نیست، ولی اینکه انسان متمدن امروز وضعیت وخیم و بغرنجی، حتی بدتر از حیوانات وحشی داخل جنگل دارد برای من جدید بود. موریس در این کتاب انسان شهرنشین امروزی را با حیوانات در اسارت مقایسه می‌کند و نام باغ وحش انسانی را روی این تمدن انسانی می‌گذارد. چون برای اکثر رفتارهای انسانی، یک هم ارز در میان حیوانات وحشی - آن هم نه در شرایط عادی حیوانی بلکه در شرایط مصنوعی اسارت - دیده می‎‌شود. نویسنده از ابتدا تا پایان کتاب، با ذکر رفتارهای انسانی، هم ارز حیوانی آن‌ها را هم ذکر می‌کند و خواننده‌ی کم مطالعه در این حوزه را به تعجب و شگفتی وا می‌دارد. از غذا خوردن و رفع نیاز‌های اولیه بگیرید، تا رقابت‌های ورزشی، اصول مد، شیوه‌ی هدایت اجتماع و رهبری، تولید مثل، عشق و ... .هرچند این شیوه‌ی نظریه‌پردازی بیش از حد تقلیل‌گرایانه بنظر می‌رسد، ولی اکثر مثال‌های زیست‌شناختی کتاب منطقی و علمی هستند. بدیهی‌ست که مطالب این‌چنینی در جامعه نیمه‌سنتی و در حال گذار ما، برای عده‌ی کثیری که سرشت و سرنوشت انسانی را تحت کنترل و تاثیر عوامل متافیزیکی می‌بینند سخت ناامید کننده واقع می‌شود

هدف کتاب

نویسنده بر این عقیده‌ست که علی‌رغم پیشرفت تکنولوژی، دیر یا زود نابودی نوع انسان بدست خودش رقم خواهد خورد، مگه اینکه بشر از شرایط طبیعی (در گذشته) و غیرطبیعی (امروز) آگاهی کافی بدست آورد و برای نجات نوع خود اقدام کند. اصلی ترین قدمی هم که باید در این راه برداشته شود، کاهش روند صعودی رشد جمعیت و هدایت آن با هر شیوه‌ای به یک روند نزولی ست. موریس در لفافه می‌گوید خودمان باید به شیوه‌ای بخشی از جامعه انسانی را از میان برداریم تا جلوی انقراض کامل نوع بشر گرفته شود و بدین منظور بهتر است از بارداری و تولد پیشگیری کنیم تا اینکه بخواهیم انسان‌های رشد یافته و بالغ را از میان برداریم

چند پاورقی

اول - کتاب در زمان خودش جنجال زیادی به پا کرده و باورهای بسیاری را به چالش کشیده، اما باید این موضوع را در نظر بگیریم که از زمان نگارش و چاپ کتاب 42 سال می‌گذرد و در این سال‌ها علم پیشرفت زیادی کرده و باورهای علمی دچار تغییرات زیادی شده‌اند، پس نباید توقع داشت با کتابی به‌روز و پر از ارجاعات روبرو شویم. اما اگر این موضوع را فاکتور بگیریم، استدلال‌ها تا حد زیادی فارغ از اشکالات منطقی هستند و این در مقابل دفاعیه‌های پر از مغلطه‌ و شبه علمی‌ای که اغلب توسط بنیادگرایان مذهبی ارائه می‌شود یک نقطه‌ی قوت به حساب می‌آید

دوم - تمام استدلال‌ها و مطالب کتاب روی پیش‌فرض فرگشت سوار شده. پس اگر با فرگشت مشکل دارید، احتمالا کتاب نتواند رسالت‌ش را برای شما تمام و کمال به انجام رساند. با این وجود می‌شود از زاویه‌ی دیگری هم به کتاب نگاه کرد: شما اگر هم مخالف فرگشت (تکامل) باشید (مخالف بودن الزااما به معنای مذهبی بودن نیست، تاویل‌های نوین دینی اغلب فرگشت را پذیرفته‌اند)، باز هم کتاب می‌تواند با این مکانیسم برای شما مفید باشد: در شما ایجاد شک و شبهه و سوال کند، به چالش کشیده شوید و از این کتاب به‌عنوان سرنخ برای مطالعات بعدی استفاده کنید

خواندن کتاب توصیه می‌شود به

بارها و بارها پیش آمده که با دیدن قساوت و جنایت‌های آدمی، از عبارت‌های وصفی‌ای استفاده کنیم که کلمه حیوان جز ثابت آن است، در حدی که واژه‌ی حیوان به‌صورت یک ناسزا کاربرد مستقل زبانی پیدا کرده. ولی آیا واقعا چنین اعمال انسانی‌ای از حیوانات هم سر‌میزند؟! مثلا حیوانات یکدیگر را برای رفع نیاز‌های دسته چندم خود قتل عام می‌کنند؟ برای تفریح دست به قتل و تکه‌پاره کردن نژاد خود می‌زنند؟ آزار و قتل از روی حسادت و بدخواهی میان حیوانات وجود دارد؟ حیوانات هم شکنجه می‌کنند یا این صرفا در قاموس رفتار انسانی معنی پیدا کرده و در دنیای حیوانات چنین چیزی نداریم؟ شاید درست‌تر باشد که وقتی به ندرت رفتار غیرطبیعی و پلیدی از حیوانات می‌بینیم، بگیم چه حیوانات انسان‌صفتی! اگر چیزی جز این فکر می‌کنید پیشنهاد می‌کنم این کتاب را بخونید. اگر هنوز فکر می‌کنید که انسان اشرف مخلوقات است، که تمام هستی برای او بوجود اومده، پیشنهاد می‌کنم این کتاب را بخونید. اگر نوع انسان را خیلی دست بالا می‌گیرید، وجدان و احساس انسانی را ستایش می‌کنید، اگر به پیشرفت و توسعه انسانی و صلح جهانی اعتقاد راسخ دارید، پیشنهاد می‌کنم این کتاب را بخونید. این کتاب می‌تواند در ترکاندن حباب خوش‌خیالی ما (با صدای پوپ مانند ملایمی) کمک شایانی کند

[Nandakishore Mridula · Rating 4 out of 5]

In scholarly circles, I understand that Desmond Morris is not taken very seriously nowadays. His anthropological observations of the human race are seen as too simplistic. However, I have always found his analysis to be relevant and highly enjoyable.

Here, the human animal is observed in urban surroundings - according to the author, this is equivalent to the limited surroundings of a zoo. Animals exhibit many "deviant" behaviours under captivity: Morris illustrates, in highly entertaining fashion, how the same is applicable to the city dweller. Rather than being a concrete jungle, the city is a "human zoo".

Extremely readable and engaging.

[Maria · Rating 5 out of 5]

این کتاب خواندنی که به بررسی شباهت های حیوانات در بند و انسان تحت اسارت زندگی شهری و محصور در محدودیتهای فرهنگی و اجتماعی می پردازد،با عنوان باغ وحش انسانی در سال1354 توسط مهندس پرویز پیر به فارسی برگردانده شده است

[Kali · Rating 1 out of 5]

Setting the standard for evolutionary psychology "just so" stories, Morris demonstrates that at least in this case evolutionary psychologists tell us more about their own biases than the human past. In Morris's analysis, the cause and effect of human evolution are crystal clear and all happen to mesh neatly with his own biases, including his sexism and homophobia. His "ten commandments of dominance," upon which he claims human relationships are based, are often absurd, such as the commandment, " You must suppress squabbles that break out between your subordinates." This of course ignores the many situations in which power is maintained by dividing subordinate groups so that they can't organize against those in power. Observations are at this level of inanity throughout the book.

[Ugnė Andriulaitytė · Rating 5 out of 5]

Būna knygas rekomenduoja geras draugas, kartais mylimas aktorius, o būna, kad netikėtai geros rekomendacijos sulauki iš miesto sienų. Šią knygą man rekomendavo grafitis, kurį matau bent du kartus per dieną, todėl tokios įkyrios rekomendacijos sunku nepaisyti. Tik dabar susimąsčiau, kaip tai simboliška ir paradoksalu, juk knyga ir yra apie mūsų gyvenimą nenatūraliose miesto erdvėse, kurias mes klaidingai vadiname betono džiunglėmis, nors tai yra tiesiog žmonių zoologijos sodas. Taigi pačios zoologijos sodo grotos mane atvedė prie knygos apie jų poveikį man.

Žmogus tikrai nenoriai prisileidžia priminimą, kad jis yra gyvūnas, ir šią mintį, tarsi kokią siaubingą vaikystės trauma, vis stumia gilyn į pasąmonės tolimiausią kampą. Sunku girdėti apie tai, ko negali pakeisti. Šioje knygoje yra tikrai daug nepatogių įžvalgų apie žmogaus prigimtį, kuri ne taip jau ir lengvai prisitaiko prie įvairių kultūrinių reiškinių ir nebespėja paskui sparčiai besikeičiančias žmogaus gyvenimo sąlygas.

Knyga pirmą kartą išleista 1969 metais, ji parašyta populiariu stiliumi siekiant nustebinti skaitytoją, todėl kai kuriuos faktus tikrai reikėtų patikrinti ir plačiau nepasidomėjus aklai nesiremti šiuo darbu rašant mokslinius straipsnius. Nepaisant to, atrodo, kad ši knyga vis dar nepraranda savo aktualumo, pateikia itin įdomių įžvalgų, kurias perskaičius jau nebegali „atskaityti atgal“ ir nukišti į sąmonės gilumą.

Baisiausia, kad raktas nuo šio zoologijos sodo yra jau negrįžtamai prarastas (ir tikrai ne tik dėl to, kad pripratome prie patogumų), todėl belieka atrasti savo būdą, kaip prie to toliau mokysimės prisitaikyti.

[Sadra Kharrazi · Rating 4 out of 5]

باغ وحش انسانی با این عنوان لعنتی جذاب، از اون کتاباییه که باید بهش بگم "درست و حسابی "
پرِ مطالب جالب، آموزنده و تفکربرانگیز

موریس خواننده رو به سفری درون جامعه‌ مدرن انسانی دعوت می‌کنه؛ سفری که در اون، انسان نه به عنوان موجودی متعالی، بلکه به‌ مثابه‌ حیوانی در قفسی پیشرفته مورد بررسی قرار می‌گیره. او به طرح این پرسش بنیادین می‌پردازه که آیا زندگی شهری – با همه‌ نشانه‌های تمدن، رفاه و توسعه‌ – واقعا به رهایی انسان منجر شده یا اونو در نوعی اسارت مدرن گرفتار کرده؟

از نگاه موریس، شهرهای بزرگ شباهتی شگفت‌انگیز به باغ‌وحش دارن: محلی پر از موجوداتی از گونه‌ای خاص که در قفس‌هایی به ظاهر راحت و امن زندگی می‌کنن، اما در واقع از محیط طبیعی خود جدا افتاده‌ان و رفتارهایی ناهنجار از خودشون نشون می‌دن.

او انسان مدرن رو جانوری می‌بینه که در آپارتمان‌ها، اتوبوس‌ها، آسمان‌خراش‌ها و اداره‌ها محصور شده. این انسان که در ظاهر از طبیعت فراتر رفته و با علم و صنعت، محیط اطراف خودش رو دگرگون کرده، در باطن، هنوز همون موجودیه که غرایز، نیازهای جنسی و غریزی و ساختار زیستیش تغییر چندانی نکرده‌. این ناهماهنگی میان محیط جدید و ساختار زیستی قدیمی، به زعم موریس، سرچشمه‌ بسیاری از اختلالات روانی، خشونت‌ها، بی‌حوصلگی‌ها و بیگانگی‌هاییه که بشر امروز با اونا دست‌وپنجه نرم می‌کنه.


و واقعا احساس می‌کنم که حرفای موریس درسته...

اگه بخوایم وضعیت کنونی جوامع انسانی رو با مفهوم باغ‌وحش انسانی که این آقا در کتابش مطرح می‌کنه مقایسه کنیم، متوجه می‌شیم که این استعاره نه‌تنها هنوز هم معتبره ( یعنی بعد گذشت بیش از 50 سال از انتشار کتاب)
بلکه در بسیاری موارد بیش از گذشته قابل درک و ملموس شده.

مواردیش رو اینجا میارم:

+++
فشارهای روانی و اجتماعی درست مثل اضطراب حیوونا در قفس: قدم‌زدن‌های بی‌هدف، پرخاشگری یا حتی خودآزاری که میشه پیوندشون داد با افزایش چشمگیر افسردگی، تشویش، خشم‌های سرکوب‌شده، بی‌خوابی و اعتیاد به مواد، شبکه‌های اجتماعی و حتی خرید کردن.

+++
جای خالی معنا و بی‌هدفی در قفس پیشرفت: انسان حتی در جوامع مدرن ( ایران خودمون که هیچ حتی در تامین بدیهیاتشم مونده) با وجود داشتن امنیت، شغل و امکانات، اغلب احساس پوچی یا بی‌معنایی می‌کنه. بسیاری به دنبال معنا در مصرف‌گرایی، شهرت مجازی یا موفقیت مالین، اما اینا در اغلب موارد جای خالی نیازهای عمیق‌تر انسانی رو پر نمی‌کنن.

+++
زندگی مصنوعی و فناوری‌محور مثل ابزارهایی که قفس رو تزیین کردن: فناوری زندگی رو در ظاهر آسون‌تر کرده، اما نوعی انزوا و بیگانگی جدید خلق شده. تماس انسانی کم‌تر، تحرک بدنی کم‌تر، خواب نامنظم، غذاهای بی‌روح و روابط عاطفی شکننده، از ویژگی‌های عصر دیجیتالن. در واقع، قفس‌ها فقط پیشرفته‌تر شدن اما هنوز قفسن.

+++
جدایی از طبیعت: بشر از جنگل، دشت، دریا، آسمان شب و حتی سکوت جدا افتاده. نه‌تنها با طبیعت زندگی نمی‌کنیم، بلکه خیلیا اونو فراموش کردن. در باغ‌وحش انسانیِ امروز، بچه‌ها بیشتر در مورد برندها، گوشی‌ها و لوگوها می‌دونن تا درخت‌ها، حیوانات یا ستارگان. همین فاصله باعث بیگانگی عمیق از خود، جهان و معنا شده.

در پایان گریزی بزنیم به اون جمله عجیب و غریب آقای هراری، در کتاب انسان خردمند:

" انقلاب کشاورزی، بزرگترین فریب تاریخه..."

و باز هم تکرارش کنیم:

" انقلاب کشاورزی، بزرگترین فریب تاریخه..."

و بر سنگ قبرمون بنویسیم:

" انقلاب کشاورزی، بزرگترین فریب تاریخه..."

[Javier · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book shortly after reading the naked ape. I thought it was a great book. The human animal acts just like the animals it claims to be "superior to". In SuperFreakeconomics .... the economist started using money on the monkeys .... once they learned the coins had value ..., the female monkeys, prostituted themselves, sex for money .... this is no small discovery. When I was in Saudi Arabia, two female soldiers were court martialed because they were prostituting.

Their defense, initially they were giving it away .... but then all the men kept coming back for more .... so they began to charge .... the men didnt liked it so they accused the female soldiers of prostitution. The women were court martialed, a felony offense, they loose their voting privileges, their right to carry a gun, or even bullets, they cant hold certain jobs, they are disgraced in the community, they are fined, demoted, jailed and finally released with nothing.

If this had been my sister, daughter, mother, or any relation to me, I would have shot the bastards. Interesting that you can sell your body and be a surrogate, but dont you dare sell your privates! ... Thats just wrong. Ah religious fanaticism. Anyway this should inspire some of you to poetry, or to stop reading some of those romance novels.

When the monkeys discovered the value of a dollar, they stole the coins.

[Dustin J Allen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Changed the way I see things. Haha. Desmond Morris is an awesomely funny and radical academic.

[Buck Wilde · Rating 4 out of 5]

I can only assume the working title was "Shitty Cities: Why People Are Garbage When They Don't Live In the Woods".

After a near catastrophe where I spilled a gallon of water on it and had to bake it dry in my car, effort justification forced me to power through it the rest of the way. It made a callous and unpopular suggestion vis-à-vis "human nature" that I have no choice but to love.

The Human Zoo is overgrown civilization, specifically in the form of major, metropolitan cities. We evolved to be social animals in small tribes that could very rarely exceed 20 or so, and our opportunistic, scavenging nature imbued us with dexterous and exploratory minds which crave stimulation and relaxation in equal measure. Morris never flat out says things like "civilized overstimulation is what leads to chronic anxiety and eventual stress diseases" or "organized church religions fulfill the need for cerebral relaxation by allowing a sense of community wherein you can turn your mind off, and reap benefits from both", but they are strongly implied.

A major theme of the book is equilibrium, and how evolution has adapted us not only as individuals but as a species to try to stay in tune with our environment, even as we deliberately change our environment. This culminates in the suggestion that as a unified, nearly hive-mind organism, we understand that we are overpopulated, and unconsciously rectify the situation.

It is in this way he explains our drives to contraception and war. Both are foreign to other animals, for obvious reasons in the case of the former, but no other animal can get populous enough to need war. If they do, starvation will claim them first because their ill-equipped neural hardware guarantees shortsightedness.

We are too smart and too safe to die by predation or plague. Instead, we've created a masochistic utopia where the mere act of languishing in daily comfort gives us mental illnesses we correct with psychoactives that disable the exact mental processes that made us apex animals. We starve some of our super-tribe, we murder outgroups with very little hesitation, and in an increasingly growing percentage of cases, we end our own, individual lives.

I know it's Jungian and mystical to suggest there's some thrumming sociopsychological undercurrent compelling us to die so we can hit an evolutionary quo. I'm skeptical too. But I acknowledge that everything else about humans, from mating patterns to menstruation, moves cyclically, just as electrons orbit their protons and the planets revolve around the sun.

I really liked the book, although it was dated and hokey in parts. Unavoidable, considering it was written 45 years ago, and a chapter or two would make tumblr burst into flames of indignation, but Morris did what he could with what he had and I can respect that and still extrapolate from the hard science provided. He took a number of potshots at Americans. I guess I can't blame him, but don't think I didn't notice, buddy. That's the thing about Americans.

We never forget.

The sex and super-sex area of the book was, naturally, the most interesting. It's not a topic you can top. Morris divvied human sexual motivation into ten different kinds of sex, the most socially relevant being "Status sex"; sex as a means of social climbing, not so much "sleeping your way to the top" as gaining reassurance in your social success by varied sexual experiences. I just finished writing an entirely-too-long research paper about the Sociometer hypothesis of self-esteem, which mirrored this suggestion in more sterile and less intimate terms by suggesting self-esteem functions as a means of gauging how socially accepted you are, and low self-esteem serves as an early warning mechanism for community ostraciziation. In a perfect world, good self-esteem would be linked with exploratory promiscuity, but since promiscuity is frequently driven by low self-esteem in the first place ("Ima prove I'm worth something"), we can surmise this is not a perfect world. Hell, maybe that'll be my thesis.

I was also partial to this little snippet:
If the modern Status Sex practitioner is unable to achieve real conquests, there are still a number of alternatives available to him. A mildly insecure male can express himself by telling dirty jokes. These carry the implication that he is aggressively sexual, but an obsessive, persistent, dirty-joke-teller begins to arouse suspicion in his companions. They detect a compensation mechanism.
Come on. You know that guy. We all know that guy.

The imprinting and malimprinting bit was as good a guess as any, and better than most. It's a relief to find that concept in a book not entitled "Perv". Now I can quote it like it's real science.

Overall, a really interesting and surprisingly readable book penned by a cranky zoologist about how people are shitty. I'll be picking up The Naked Ape at some point in the near future.

[☘Misericordia☘ ⚡ϟ⚡⛈⚡☁ ❇️❤❣ · Rating 5 out of 5]

We do live in a zoo :)

[Vold Kira · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un interesante análisis de la naturaleza biológica del ser humano, porque, aunque queramos racionalizar todo y apartarnos de nuestro lado salvaje, no somos más que animalitos en un zoo humano.

Fue un MINDFUCK en cada apartado, haciéndome decir WOW a cada comparación humana con los animales salvajes. El sexo de status, las necesidades fisiológicas, el mimetismo de dominio... Tanta cosa que al parecer son completamente normales en nuestro día a día, pero que tienen una raíz aún más profunda y, sobre todo, antiquísima y prehistórica.

Lo único con lo que pude decir "NO" fue con el apartado donde ve a la homosexualidad como una desviación y una malgrabación. Lo entiendo, fue escrito en los 80's cuando la homosexualidad aún era vista como una enfermedad, pero ¡vamos...! ¿No podías decirlo de una forma un poco más amable? ¡Claro que hay evidencias de homosexualidad en el reino animal, y no comenzaron a verse únicamente porque fuera quitada del apartado de enfermedades mentales en los 90!

De otra forma, se le da mucha importancia al machismo y también lo entiendo, en el reino animal el macho es el "alfa" de casi todos los grupos animales, pero no era necesario que prácticamente cada sección del libro tuviera como columna vertebral la dominación masculina sobre la hembra... aunque debo admitir que me hizo pensar de forma más seria sobre el problema patriarcal que existe en nuestra sociedad por la profunda raíz biológica que nos presenta Morris en este libro.

Un libro de cajón, que definitivamente debes leer para abrir la mente y ver el origen de muchas de nuestras conductas, y, por qué no, darle una buena cachetada intelectual a aquellos que aún creen que por el simple hecho de ser humanos, estamos exentos de cualquier influencia que la madre naturaleza tiene sobre nosotros.

[Nick Arkesteyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

What happens when you take people who are biologically programmed to live in groups of less than 200 and cram them into large dense cities? This book describes the interesting behavior patterns that play out from politics to sex.

There are so so so many levels to this book. It is worth many reads.

Every human should read this book!

Nick Arkesteyn

[Paz Montenegro Urbina · Rating 1 out of 5]

Este libro parte su hipótesis bajo premisas falsas, como que no existen naturalmente conductas como la masturbación (Bonobos lo hacen, incluso con herramientas), homosexualidad (observada en estado natural en varias especies), atacar a la propia prole (madres lo hacen con sus cachorros machos cuando alcanzan la madurez sexual, expulsándolos de la manada, como los elefantes) y un largo etc que me parece que más que un análisis psicobiológico, el autor trata de justificar conductas supuestamente "aberrantes" del ser humano que según él no ocurrirían si no viviéramos en la ciudad, indicándolas como no naturales en los animales libres. Todo argumento expuesto es inválido frente a una hipótesis basada en lo que pareciera ser un juico moral disfrazado de análisis científico

[Bernard Fournier · Rating 5 out of 5]

Une lecture fascinante qui m’a donné toutes sortes de nouvelles perspectives sur des sujets faisant déjà partie de mes réflexions quotidiennes. C’est toujours plaisant de regarder la société (ou notre zoo humain, comme dirait l’auteur) sous une nouvelle loupe.

À relire pour sûr. J’ai aussi bien hâte de me plonger dans le reste de ses oeuvres.

[Philip Aarons · Rating 5 out of 5]

1969 and a real forward thinker. While in 2012 the views have been updated and put within the context of today's cultural norms, this was and is a ground breaking book. Accessible, informative and a reflection on behaviour patterns. His contemporaries, such as Lyall Watson step out the shadows of this great author and command great books and acclaim themselves. Recommended reading and follow with his own students books.

[Alexa Abbott · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book attempted to justify lynching, sexual assault, and homophobia, and it talked for 40 pages about monkey masturbation. Even one star is generous.

[Nicholas · Rating 2 out of 5]

You're not designed for the world you live in. Cities are like zoos in that they create pathologies stemming from overcrowding and mis-stimulation. You're mind is a carefully calibrated algorithmic system and when you put it in an incorrect environment it responds incorrectly. Most current psychological pathologies arise from this fact.

The mental states induced by this misalignment are most likely confusion and anxiety. Both seemingly without cause.

I didn't like a lot of his conclusions. The premise was fine but much of everything after that I just couldn't accept the logic.

Also there were some statements that I just don't believe. Like:
In their natural environment monkey's don't masturbate or kill each other. This just sounds like nonsense. A zoo environment would certainly exacerbate such behavior but it doesn't create it.

The stuff about maintaining tribal identity in a world that does not offer true tribes was interesting.

I thought I would like this book a lot more than I did. Some of the words out of this guy's mouth were just ridiculous. HOLY SHIT. I just got the part about the phallic symbolism. Shit this guy is crazy. EVERYTHING IS PENISES. IT ALL SYMBOLIZES THE PATRIARCHY.

On page 66 he touches on an important idea. Dominance mimicry vs status seeking. But his coverage was pure nonsense. He said that dominant individuals flood the market with cheap mass produced imitations so as to increase the value of his own symbols. This is horseshit. "He" doesn't care about your mimicry. The people at the top or so far beyond the people at they bottom that there is no way they could be mimicked in any threatening way. This kind of shit was sprinkled throughout the book. Couldn't stand it.

The idea of cheap, mass-produced imitations of high-status goods is important though.


Quotes:

"The character of the human animal is such that we will always fight against the loss of our tribal identity. Some cities encourage this struggle. They foster imaginative local variation. Those that fail to do so will soon find that their, bland, inhuman scale will be disrupted and dismantled. The plain truth is that, if this is not done constructively, it will be done destructively. There is a special message in the gangland graffiti that city planners fail to see: acres of gray concrete do not a village make."

"With each new complexity, you will find yourself one step farther away form your natural tribal state, the state in which your ancestors existed for a million years."

"Revolutionary leaders would do well to anticipate this problem. It is not the chains of social identity that their followers will want to break, it is the chains of a particular social identity. As soon as these are smashed, they will need new ones and will soon become dissatisfied merely with an abstract sense of 'freedom'. Such are the demands of the isolating laws."

"Many a powerful leader has survived occasional wrong decisions, made with style and forcefulness, but few have survived hesitant indecisiveness. The golden rule of leadership here, which in a rational age is an unpleasant one to accept, is that it is the manner in which you do something that really counts, rather than what you do. It is a sad truth that a leader who does the wrong things in the right way will, up to a certain point, gain greater allegiance and enjoy more success than one who does the right things in the wrong way."

"A rational solution is to do away with the powerful leader-figure, to relegate him to the ancient, tribal past where he belonged, and to replace him with a computer fed organization of interdependent, specialized experts. Something approaching such an organization already exists, of course, and in England any civil servant will tell you without hesitation that it is the civil service that really runs the country. To emphasize his point he will inform you that when parliament is in session his work is seriously hampered; only during parliamentary recesses can serious progress be made. All this is very logical, but unfortunately it is not bio-logical, and the country he claims to be running happens to be made up of biological specimens - the super-tribesmen. True, a super-tribe needs super-control, and if it is too much for one man it might seem reasonable to solve the problem by converting a power-figure into a power-organization. This does not, however, satisfy the biological demands of the followers. They may be able to reason super-tribally, but their feelings are still tribal, and they will continue to demand a real leader in the form of an identifiable, solitary individual. It is a fundamental pattern of their species, and there is no avoiding it. Institutions and computers may be valuable servants to the masters, but they can never themselves become masters (science fiction stories notwithstanding). A diffuse organization, a faceless machine, lacks the essential properties: it cannot inspire and it cannot be deposed. The single dominant human is therefore doomed to struggle on, behaving publicly like a tribal leader, with panache and assurance, while in private he grapples laboriously with the almost impossible tasks of super-tribal control."

"The flaw i the social dropout's solution is that he does not really drop out at all: he stays put and pours scorn on the rat race that surrounds him."

"The vast majority of all sports, pastimes, hobbies and 'good works' have as their principle function not their specifically avowed aims, but the much more basic aim of follow-the-leader=and-beat-him-if-you-can. However, this is a description and not a criticism. In fact, the situation would be much more grave f this multitude of harmless sub-groups, or pseudo=tribes, did not exist. They funnel off a great deal of the frustrated ladder-climbing that might otherwise cause considerable havoc."

"Well-meaning authorities talk airily about 'hopes for a global society'. They see clearly the technical possibility of such a development, given the marvels of modern communication, but they stubbornly overlook the biological difficulties."

"Failures to date have largely been due to attempts to suppress the existing difference between the various groups, rather than to improve the nature of these differences by converting them into more rewarding and peaceful forms of competitive social interaction. Attempts to iron out the whole world into one great expanse of uniform monotony are doomed to disaster."

"If any small boy can, on his personal merits, eventually become the greatest of leaders, then for every one who succeeds there will be vast numbers of failures. These failures can no longer put the blame on the external fores of the wicked class system. They must place it firmly where it belongs, on their own personal shortcomings. It seems, therefore, that any large-scale, lively, progressive super-tribe must inevitably contain a high proportion of intensely frustrated status-seekers. The dumb contentment of a rigid, stagnant society is replaced by the feverish longings and anxieties of a mobile, developing one. How do the struggling status-seekers react to this situation? The answer is that, if they cannot get to the top, they do their best to create the illusion of being less subordinate than they really are."

"It is very bewildering for our struggling super-tribesman. He has obeyed all the rules, but something has gone wrong. The super-status demands of the human zoo are cruel indeed. Either he fails and becomes disillusioned, or he succeeds and loses control of his family. Worse still, he can work so hard that he loses control of his family and still fails."

"By all the rules, the human zoo should be a screaming mad-house by now, disintegrating into complete social confusion."

"When in a threatening mood, a superior male of this species approaches close to an inferior and obtrusively erects his penis in the inferior's face." Awesome.

"We have to face the fact that, living in a human zoo, we are inevitably going to suffer from many abnormal relationships. We are bound to be exposed in unusual ways to unusual stimuli. Our nervous systems are not equipped to deal with this an our patterns of response will sometimes misfire. Like the experimental or zoo animals, we may find ourselves fixated with strange and sometimes damaging bonds, or we may suffer from serious bond confusion. It can happen to any of us, at any time. It is merely another of the hazards of existing as an inmate of a human zoo. We are all potential victims, and the most appropriate reaction, when we come across it in someone else, is sympathy rather than cold intolerance."

"Unfortunately we tend to forget that we are animals with certain specific weaknesses and certain specific strengths. We think of ourselves as blank sheets on which anything can be written. We are not. We come into the world with a set of basic instructions and we ignore or disobey them at our peril."

[Victoria · Rating 5 out of 5]

A friend gave me this book when I asked why society is so crazy and people are so self-destructive. This book was written in the 60s and while some views are considered outdated by today's standards (re: homosexuality, for example), it provides certain insights. Certain things that make sense in a tribal culture expresses themselves differently in a super-tribe. Overall, very perceptive work.

[Srikkanthan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Can't believe this was written in the late sixties. This is one wonderful book that puts forth with all honesty why the urbanized human being is so violent as well as vulnerable. This book is really thought provoking and definitely would change the world view after reading.

[Minh Nhật · Rating 5 out of 5]

nếu vượn trần trụi chỉ ở mức hay vừa phải thì tới vườn thú người thật sự ấn tượng, rất ấn tượng.

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Morris's premise is an interesting one--that animals in zoos suffer from loneliness and deprivation and act out in unwholesome ways that do not occur in nature. So, too, man is housed in a zoo. It's called a city. As such, we have murder, thievery, and so on--actions you would see nowhere in nature.

Our natural environment is one of small tribes, where we hunt and gather. There are maybe fifty of us to twenty square miles. Instead, we have supertribes--cities where we don't know our neighbors and we're piled on top of each other. Yet somehow we thrive and survive. How? Because cities also foster creativity in ways that subsistence living does not. It's a constant fight between our desire for smaller tribes (hence, religion, sports clubs, civil wars) and the power that comes with larger tribes (hence, demigogs, dictatorships).

Morris writes from an evolutionary anthropologists perspective, believing that man has for most of existence been akin to an ape. While I don't subscribe to this view, it sets up an intriguing line of argument. (My view is that man is created and that the banding together into cities did not occur thousands of years after man's evolution but rather within hundreds if not tens of years after man's creation. We are social creatures. We see this desire to band even in the story of the Tower of Babel, which takes place not long after man is almost completely banished from earth. So to me the city is not unnatural. Spending time in the country is likely to reveal as odd a set of behaviors and sometimes depravities as any city might. Rather, it is cultural moires, fostered best in smaller towns--tribes, I suppose, in Morris's view [so maybe he isn't far off the mark]--but also evident in some Asian cultures, in some religions, and in tightknit families, that create conformity and a relatively smaller scale of "immoral" behavior.)

Morris's foray into specific behaviors created by city living dwells chiefly on the subject of status. In tribes, people vie for status, but in super-tribes this vying becomes something much more dangerous, pumped up on steroids, if you will, because of the size of the group. The first form that this competition takes is one based on authority and power. People look for a dominant leader--a king, a dictator. And all people want to be this leader. Morris spends much time comparing symbols of dominance among babboons to those among humans to make his point. And then he gets into the subject of its modern manifestations in the city: cliques, materialism, murder, and suicide. Because not everyone can be top dog, we split into smaller groups--hobbyists, generations, classes, workers, etc.--that we might manage to dominate: to be the big fish in the small pond. But this isn't always satisfactory either, and so we sometimes pretend to be something we aren't, which is the source of consumerism. A lower-class person mimics a high-class person by buying goods he or she can't afford or by buying cheap ripoffs that look like the higher-class goods (diamond necklaces, or fake diamond necklaces, instead of beads). As a result, folk art is pushed aside in favor of manufactured imitations. (Interesting, fifty years later, folk art and DIY culture is pushed the fore in some ways as an example of leisure and class--one has time to make a beaded necklace, instead of working!) Likewise, people commit violent acts against less powerful creatures, be they animals, children, family, or themselves. It is community standards that keep people from killing others, which then causes them to turn that violence against themselves. Suicide rates are higher in cities than in the country, and they are higher during times of peace than during times of war (when violence against others in condoned). Here, then, Morris says, is one result of our city, our human zoo: violence and consumerism to show status within the tribe.

The next means by which status is shown has to do with sex. Again, Morris rehearses a set of rules: why people have sex--to procreate, to enjoy the physical simulation, to pair up, to be relieved of stress or boredom. He makes his comparisons to apes and other animals, who often show off their penises to maters and who use mating as a means to show their dominance or submission to one another. Men display their genitals as well, as we see in society through the use of various phallic symbols, often used as a means of insulting others (demonstrating dominance). Status is further demonstrated by sex through the accumulation of large numbers of partners (harems, serial monogamy) and through violent acts like rape. The need to pair up, bred into us from evolution, is slow to change, however, and interferes with promiscuity. (The arguments here seem forged around men showing dominance, as if it is men who are chiefly or solely the ones seeking status.) How sex as a status symbol is tied into the city is not entirely clear to me, other than that the number of available partners and the ease of demonstrating status is increased.

In the next chapter Morris turns his attention to in-groups and out-groups and how they are established. An in-group is unified; an out-group is that which the in-group unifies against. Absence of an out-group usually means the in-group turns against itself, resulting in civil war. We establish what is out usually by easily delineated physically differences: skin color, shape of eyes, language. The possibility for war is increased via city living because people have land--rather than being nomads--to defend, and the tribes they defend are now supertribes, contributing to the size of the out-group and in-group and to the interaction these two will have (they can't just wander off, because there's insufficient extra land to allow that). (In nature, we defend self, family, and tribe. In the city, we defend possessions and supertribe as well.) Specialization means that some people are devoted to warmaking in and of itself and that leaders don't have to fight and risk their own lives to wage war, resulting, again, in even more wars. Furthermore, the seeking of status, frustrated in such supertribes, finds home is violence against out-groups, even as the desire to cooperate with those in the in-group encourages such violence and warring. Morris completes the chapter by making various dire comments on the population explosion and how that is going to exacerbate the situation (if only we could all go back to small hunter-gatherer tribes on huge ranges).

Next, Morris writes about imprinting--how certain good or bad experiences can have undue effects on us and on animals. Ducklings reared with ony members of their own sex might only try to mate with other members of their own sex later in life; peacocks raised with monkeys might come to think they are monkeys; and so on. Humans, caged off from one another in a city--socially ostracized--might well forge odd behaviors too, such as sexual fetishes (caused by having focusing on some inanimate object during first sexual encounters, be it a shoe or a leather glove or underwear) and even a desire for pets (which are made to mimic babies). My issue here is that the social alienation that Morris writes of would not necessarily be solved in small hunter-gatherer groups. A city is a place of large social gathering; that some don't take advantage, that they stay cooped up with their small, immediate family to escape the evils around them, doesn't mean that being raised alone, within a small family unit, in the middle of nowhere would change experiences--they're still socially isolated. At this point, I felt as if Morris's claims were getting less and less defensable.

Morris returns to form with his chapter on stimuli. Like animals in zoos, people in cities generally lack for stimuli (or are occasionally overstimulated). Whereas humans used to have to eak out an existence hunting and gathering just enough to eat, now most of their needs are supplied in a relatively short period of time. The excess time leftover leads to boredom and a need to find other means of stimulation. Ways to find such stimulation include (1) making problems to solve where there were none, (2) overreacting to mundane tasks, (3) creating new things to do, (4) making much out of less stimulating activities, and (5) magnifying selected items. For those who are overstimulated, they can blot out incoming sensations. An example of the latter might be taking certain kinds of drugs or sleeping excessively. Examples of the other strategies include crime and adultery (1); overeating and gossip (2); playing games, looking at and making artwork, listening to and making music, writing and reading books (3); masturbation (4); and new fashions that emphasize different sexual parts of the body (5). Number 2 actually seems a good result of city life to me. Morris's contention with regard to fashion, which seems something of a detour, though intriguing, is that women's fashion focuses on exaggerating a rotating selection of errogenous zones; men's fashion, by contrast, among modernists, has tended to emphasize how leisurely a person is (thus, we borrow our clothes from various sports--and as those become commonplace, we find another sport to borrow from). While Morris's arguments here seem to make somewhat more sense, he doesn't always keep his examples to the city, which belies his point. Ironically, for instance, one of the examples he gives of making much of less-than-normal stimulation is nothing a city person would have opportunity nor, in most cases, temptation or desire to participate in: bestiality. Such an example rather makes his larger point seem more tendentious, for if country living leads to such actions, then the issue is not lack of stimulus caused by the city. Rather, the issue becomes one of modern life and living, but here too the argument might not be so strong, for a lack of leisure time does not necessarily equate to a lack of depravity. Busy people tend not to do as many bad things out of boredom, but people with fewer resources still have drives to fulfill that might lead them to steal or do other things frowned upon by larger society. The issue than is not city or country, but the degree to which a society maintains social control. A close tribe or family will exert more pressure on an individual's lifestyle than will a society (or lack thereof) that allows for more individual freedom of choice. But that, of course, is the tradeoff, for both individualism and groupthink come with their own advantages and disadvantages.

In Morris's final chapter, he turns to education and issues attendant with it. He notes that people tend to be most innovative out of two needs: (1) panic or scarcity; and (2) security. In the former, troubles become so overwhelming that people are motivated to find new ways to do something. In the latter, people are so provided for that they find new things to do out of a desire to fill time and to explore. It's the middle ground that tends to lack for innovation--where people are eeking out a living but are neither secure enough to explore nor so poor as to have to explore. Most of human existence fit in this middle ground, but modern man fits in the latter. That need to explore, to be curious, is taken up by childlike adults, who do odd things either because they rebel against constraints set on them as kids or because they continue in the curious lifestyle their parents afforded them as kids. Elders in supertribes tend to want to squash innovation, but instead they should encourage it. In a sense then, Morris ends his discussion on the human zoo with a call for, not a return to hunting and gathering, but for more urbanization, more change, more moves away from our evolutionary beginnings.

[Caroline Van · Rating 5 out of 5]

George told me to read the ending so this review is just for the last two chapters. I get how it can be a little over simplified but I like analogies being used to offer an alternative way of thinking about things (not that books have a high track record to change the way people live). (But also what I mean by that is like the carrier bag analogies. It’s the idea that the first tools humans made were bags to carry things, not spears or weapons. And that can teach us that humans are built to be around each other and share with each other, not fight against each other. Like okay I love that so much and we have no real way of knowing it’s true (I don’t believe Anthropologists they’re just trying to get that degree publishing new theories) but it’s life affirming to hear that semi bootleg science). But this book wasn’t pessimistic. It was loving towards people and the habits we make being animals who are stuck in a world that doesn’t acknowledge animalness.

He talks about there being specialist and opportunist animals. Specialists have an immortality project and are set when they enter older age—noun people. Opportunists float and once they have run out of societal spots for themselves end up in a stimulus struggle. They (and all of us morris is saying) are either under or over stimulated. We create labor wasting devices (drama, making self super busy) to feel like life is worthwhile. He has these great rules—“if stimulation is too weak, you may increase your behavior output by over reacting to normal stimulus.”

George thinks it’s why adults get into drama or are mean to each other. To counterbalance their lack of stimulation as an animal. And why we’re doing all sorts of weird shit instead of being vulnerable and social.

Also morris at the end talks about how we become exploratory as a species in situations of disaster and increased security.

How would he want us to change based on what he’s talking about? Being highly more social, engaging in natural human behaviors around touch and socialization. That we are putting outselves into our own little zoo cages at the end of the day in our little apartments alone. The death of the ego, dissolution of the self into community, etc, etc. sexy goals mmmm

[Aurélien Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

We often compare the urban lifestyle to that of a jungle. We're wrong. It's not to a jungle that we ought to compare it, but, to a zoo.

Desmond Morris exposes here why by tackling our city-dwellers' behaviours, that he puts in perspective against that of our fellow animals when caged in zoos. The other great apes, our closest kins, are on that point an enlightening mirror...

Cities might be a good thing indeed when it comes to reduce the problems associated to life in the wild and a natural environment (access to food, health care...), like zoos are for animals, then, but such a life in such a habitat also comes with a price. Such price, in fact, comes from, well, the fact that cities are, like zoos, unnatural! These are artificial enclosures, where we are compelled to live alongside each other, and to lead lives going from one extreme to the next (hectic activities or, on the contrary, unhealthy boredom).

Is it any surprising, asks the author, that such dysfunctional environments lead to no less dysfunctional behaviours? Violence becomes endemic, both against others (including our own offspring) and others; diseases of all sorts are developing (stress, obesity...); and even our sexuality isn't spared (masturbation, fetichism, homosexuality...), all kinds of comportments that we witness only in caged animals.

Desmond Morris, simply yet brilliantly, exposes how modifying our environment leads to a modifying of our behaviours, a fact that should leave us to ponder on how and why we modify it in the first place! Here's a striking read, offering a different view upon urban life (without condemning nor denouncing it) and the malaise that comes with it. Very, very interesting.

[Johan · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book came out in 1969 and boy does it show.
He starts off by making a claim that the modern world (1969, nice) is a bad place for humans, because evolutionary-wise we haven't caught up. The Homo Sapiens is about 200 000 to 300 000 years old as far as we know. And the first civilisation, the sumerians, is about 6000 years old. I'll bite, what have you got for me, Morris?

Desmond point out a lot of similarities between animals at the zoo and humans in todays modern society. (1969, nice) He draws up a lot of comparisons between hierarchies in a group of monkeys and humans working in an office building. And how various animals groom themselves in order to look representative, just like how a broad is getting dolled up to go on a date.
To me, this approach feels very dated. I can't say I blame him, he was a zoologist trying to write about the modern world.

It reminds me of when I was in high school and we were to read The Lord of the Flies by William Goulding for psychology class. Our teacher made the argument that the book shows clearly how people work in a society like that. To which I raised my hand and pointed out that The Lord of the Flies is a piece of fiction, with made-up characters and events. That can hardly be used for a claim like that! Got no response from the teacher.
I wish to do the same everytime Desmond uses similarities between human and animals to bring home a point. There is a whole strata of information and research missing before we can make that claim!

I wouldn't recommend this because I believe there are better books out there about humans in the modern society. Maybe I should see if I can find Sociology by Anthony Giddens?

[Savannah Jordan · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are several errors in this book. As was true of Morris’s earlier book, The Naked Ape, most can be attributed to the lack of scientific data available at the time that The Human Zoo was published (1969). However, I can find no reason for his constantly comparing humans to monkeys and never comparing them to chimpanzees. Chimpanzees, not monkeys, are the closest relatives of homo sapiens. As far as I know this was well known long before the book’s 1969 publication.

The most notable error due to lack of scientific data was the claim that our species began its differentiation from the other apes because we were forced to transition from herbivores to omnivores. He claims that the need for the meat of other animals required males to hunt in packs and this in turn had two extremely consequential effects upon our ancestors. First, the hunt required greater coordination of effort among the males which probably enhanced brain size. Second, since the hunt required males to be away from the remainder of the community, the male needed to be certain that the female was attached to him and not mating with another male and producing an infant that was not his; hence, the development of monogamous relationships. At that time it was not known that chimpanzees, our closest relatives, are omnivores. Jane Goodall’s observations proved that chimps eat meat as well as plants and that they organize hunting parties to capture prey. The males being away on hunting trips did not result in monogamous relationships among chimps. Female chimpanzees are notoriously promiscuous.

A second notable error due to lack of scientific data is his assertion that homosexuality is due to mal-imprinting. An example of mal-imprinting is a duck emerging from an egg and seeing a human instead of its mother. The duck henceforth follows the human as it would its mother. He is unaware of the biological evidence that, although homosexuality can be the result of experience, it can also be the result of a different biochemisty.

A third notable error is related to the first error cited above. It is the claim that homo sapiens are a monogamous species. Even if one denies that monogamy is the result of our ancestors’ progression from herbivore to omnivore, we can still assert that homo sapiens are monogamous; however, the data does not indicate that. Polygyny is still the norm in many parts of the non-Western world. It did not become the norm in the Western world until a few centuries before Christ, but even then, concubinage and sex with slaves was acceptable. If one looks at current Western societies, almost 50% of marriages result in divorce, and while married, sexual relations outside of marriage are frequent.

Lastly, he sees sexual symbols almost everywhere. He states that the Christian cross is a phallic symbol. Does the man not know that tying or nailing a person to a cross or stake was a common form of Roman execution!

Despite these errors I think the author discussed several important and valid ideas. First, it warned of the disastrous consequences of over population. It is literally putting the survival of our species at risk.

Second, he discusses how animals act erratically and destructively in the unnatural setting of an enclosed area such as a zoo. He analogizes the problems present in animal zoos to the problems present in large cities. He states that although the cramped cities are unnatural to our species and create a multitude of problems, they still are a hub of creativity and that we must develop some means of reducing their destructive qualities. I agree with his analysis. I am not a fan of large cities. They are unfriendly and indifferent places, but I still see in them an energy and a hunger to create that is not present in my small, caring, albeit complacent community. Although I would never want to live in New York City or Los Angeles, I appreciate that this is where the movers and shakers of society reside.

Third, he discusses how humans are tribal creatures. They contrive a set of practices to which members of the group must adhere in order to be accepted. I am acutely aware of this trait because I have never been a part of a click or a group and have been ostracized by the various groups because of it, in particular, with regards to what I believe to be good public policy. My beliefs in this area do not adhere strictly to Democratic Party policies or to Republican Party policies. Republicans castigate me as being a liberal Democrat and Democrats castigate me as being a conservative Republican. But beyond my personal experiences the need to adhere to a tribal identity has profound consequences, particularly in the realm of foreign policy. Both Montesquieu and Tocqueville warned that people adhere to the mores and institutions to which they have grown accustomed and when one society attempts to introduce its form of government to another society, that new form of government, no matter how noble or just, will most likely be rejected, particularly, if that society has a very different history and different values. We saw this tragically manifested in the Middle East when we attempted to implement democracy. Now these countries are in a state of anarchy.

Lastly, I greatly appreciated his emphasis on our being of the animal kingdom and that the powerful animal urges are still present within us. When I argue with people that the tendency for males to dominate and for females to submit is not only present in the vast majority of the great apes, the family of which we are a member, but still present in the homo sapien biology and that it is a tendency which both genders must fight against, people resent it, saying such tendencies are merely a creation of society. I say, as does the author, Desmond Morris, on the last page of The Human Zoo “we tend to forget that we are animals with certain specific weaknesses and certain specific strengths. We think of ourselves as blank sheets upon which anything can be written. We are not. We come into the world with a set of basic instructions and we ignore or disobey them at our peril.”

[Carloto · Rating 4 out of 5]

Imaginaos un antropólogo con muchas preguntas, pocas respuestas y mucho, mucho, tiempo libre. Ese es Desmond Morris. Este autor, tan alabado por unos y tan odiado y criticado por otros decidió un buen día que era momento de explicar la conducta humana desde una vision puramente antropológica y biologicista, dejando la psicología y la sociología completamente de lado. He de decir que en algunos momentos creo que divaga demasiado y que alguien tendría que haberle pararlo. Sobre todo en el tema sexual y en la utilización del falismo psicoanalítico como dogma central de muchos de sus razonamientos. Aun así, se vuelve un autor interesantísimo de leer, pues llega a conclusiones y da ciertas explicaciones a las que nunca habría llegado y en las que nunca habría pensado de no haber sido por él. Y creo que ahí está la magia del libro y del autor. Que al intentar explicar por qué los humanos somos como somos, comparándonos con los animales, consigue, por un lado, recordarnos que no somos más que animales "avanzados" y por otro, abrir un nuevo horizonte, un nuevo frente por el que afrontar la conducta humana, que, si bien, deja muchas perspectivas fuera, puede ser una pieza más de ese puzzle infinito que acaba siendo el estudio de la mente humana y de la conciencia.

Le doy 4 estrellas porque a veces divaga demasiado y por sus aseveraciones nada científicas como si fuesen la única verdad. Ya me leí el Mono Desnudo y tenía ganas de atacar este, y no me ha defraudado. Se lo recomiendo a todo aquel que quiera entender un poquito más sobre nosotros y que quiera entrenar el arte de leer con la mente abierta y sin juzgar. Seguiré leyendo otros libros del autor.

[Sivasothi N. · Rating 4 out of 5]

An animal behaviourist applies his lens to the urban human situation and responses, thence the human zoo. This is a recent situation for our species and thus still strongly influenced by underpinning evolved biological mechanisms.

It will resonate with educators who have been adapting to the changing student condition over decades, as a result of their living spaces and societal conditions. Naturalists in public education will recognised the urbanised, nature deficit condition of the general public with some empathy.

Anyone in contested spaces will recognise the outcomes of the suggested underlying mechanics of intra- and inter-tribal behaviour. Certainly all of us who live in urban societies will appreciate the book. Biology is an insightful lens with which RO examine our condition and to work that towards contributing to our happiness during our short existence.

[Neeta Sirvi · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Human Zoo by Desmond Morris is my second read by him.

This book is published in 1969. Reading after 50 years of it's publication shows the accuracy and perfection of the authors predictions. This book is the detailed discussion of the pattern of life/ comparision of behaviour between the city-dweller and the captive animal.

This book is the collection of 7 chapters i.e.,Tribes and Super-tribes, Status and Super-status, Sex and Super-sex, In-groups and Out-groups, Imprinting and Mal-imprinting, The stimulus struggle and The childlike adult.

Fascinating book.

Every human should read this.

[Ingrida · Rating 3 out of 5]

Yra įdomių pamąstymų, bet neapleido “vakarykščio laikraščio” jausmas.

Tada pažiūrėjau ir supratau, kad naujausias cituojamas šaltinis 1968 metų. Per tiek metų praeitis, žinoma, nepasikeitė, bet įvyko daug naujo.

[Audrey · Rating 2 out of 5]

Upon re-reading: 2 stars
I just don't like this book. I think it has a lot of sexism and racism and homophobia. And I just don't enjoy it. There are hardly any citations considering this is purported to be non-fiction, and I don't think that it should be read as such. I'm also mad that I had to entirely re-read this book looking for information for my final, because there is no index or easy way to navigate it other than slogging through his philosophy. I don't know. There are so many other books out there you could read.

*2.5 stars*
I mean, here's the thing. This book was written in 1969. All of the sources that it cites in the back of the book are (obviously) even older. I thought that Desmond Morris's theories were really interesting, but I also thought that that was all they were - theories. I do think that there's value in reading people's points of view and doing what we can to understand the world and each other better. Morris's view that we live in an urban zoo was one that I had never heard of before, and at the most basic level I agree with some of it. The underlying sexism and homophobia throughout it, though, make it an uncomfortable read and hard to take too seriously. Which is, again, fine (mostly, although obviously this views are not great). The main issue I had is that I had to read this book as if it was a textbook, nearly fifty years after it was published. That's not really the book's fault, but it did emphasize the fact for me that this really shouldn't be information that you have test questions on. If you're interested in his perspective, sure. But I don't think it's a must-read, and you can probably find more modern and less offensive viewpoints which ring similarly. It was also slightly boring, lol, although the zoo anecdotes did spice things up every once and a while.
I don't recommend? But live your life?