Een tijd voor empathie

by Frans de Waal

Empathie - het vermogen om de emoties van anderen te kunnen meevoelen en de situatie van anderen te begrijpen - is een zeer oude verworvenheid die zich volgens Frans de Waal in ons lichaam én in onze geest heeft genesteld, en waardoor we als soort hebben kunnen overleven. sociaal, onbaatzuchtig gedrag, dat ook bij andere dieren dan de mens voorkomt, is volgens hem minstens net zo belangrijk als het 'recht van de sterkste'.
Na deze constatering gaat De Waal nog een stap verder en plaatst zijn onderzoek in een maatschappelijk kader. Als empathie zo belangrijk is voor de menselijke soort, moet de politiek daar dan niet meer op inspelen? De Waal schetst hoe onze soort omgaat met armoede en stelt dat ook het bedrijfsleven sociale verantwoordelijkheid zou moeten nemen zodat we een samenleving bouwen met een hogere graad van solidariteit.
Frans de Waal gidst ons door de nieuwste inzichten op het gebied van psychologie, neurowetenschappen en gedragsbiologie in zijn kenmerkende, zeer toegankelijke stijl, ondersteund door eigen observaties van mensen en primaten.

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Psychology, Animals, Philosophy, Sociology, Anthropology

224 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

Frans de Waal has been named one of Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People. The author of Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?, among many other works, he is the C. H. Candler Professor in Emory University’s Psychology Department and director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. He lives in Atlanta, Georgia.

Reviews

[Riku Sayuj · Rating 3 out of 5]

Our Animal Nature: A Glass Half-full Approach

This book is primarily a detailed exploration of animal emotions (such as empathy) and on how they stunningly correspond to the human.

Two main threads of thought emerge from this correspondence:

1. The need to recognize animals as much closer to us and to treat them with that respect, empathy and humaneness.

2. An optimism that the “better angels of our nature” are as deep-wired in us as the baser instincts that we call ‘animal instincts’. Both aspects are animal instincts with long evolutionary histories and are not mere impositions of civilization. This means that the better aspects of human nature are not as brittle and prone-to-breakdown. No thin veneer of civilization, no nature red in tooth & claw, no “Lord of the Flies” scenarios. This is optimistic because this allows us to place great confidence in fundamental human nature and not just in institutions that control it. This reminds me of 'Paradise Built in Hell.'

While I completely subscribe to this second argument, the first left me slightly uneasy. To me it was not a necessary argument. It is also a, perhaps unintentionally, negative assertion. Implicit in  it is the assumption that a species/animal has to be closer to human beings to deserve dignity of life. It is a powerful emotional argument to claim that a species is close to us and share our emotional inner life, but it is also discrimination. Life is rich and diverse; there is no reason to draw a ‘degree of separation’ from the human to measure how well a species must be treated. That is just another version of the anthropocentric world-view that de Waal works so hard to denigrate in this book.

That said, the idea that the majority of our most exalted virtues have parallels throughout the animal kingdoms and is an essential part of the evolutionary mechanism bodes very well indeed. It made me much more cheerful in my quest towards understanding how our species can live at peace with the rest of the world.

[Tyler · Rating 5 out of 5]

You've got to love a book about primates that has chapter headings with quotes by Adam Smith and Immanuel Kant. And that's why this book is so exceptional, it makes you reconsider what is so special about our species in the first place and whether the Western concept of human exceptionalism is even a healthy trait to begin with.

Are concepts of justice, equality and empathy really glorious creations of the enlightenment or are they simply labels for phenomena that occur across the animal kingdom?

Frans de Waal really opens our eyes to the true meaning of evolution and he does so in a noncondescending yet completely brilliant manner.

[Francisco · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every once in a while, when your heart is heavy with all the fighting and hatred and envy and competition and the nastiness of your fellow humans, it is good to read about the kindness of other animals (besides man). Yes, there is plenty of cruelty in nature but there is also cooperation, compassion and loyalty. It's so fascinating (and so healing) to read example after example of animals caring for each other. Oh, and Franz de Waal, a biologist, writes with humor and clarity.

[Camille · Rating 4 out of 5]

A mes heures perdues, il m'arrive d'enfiler un T-shirt orange et d'aller militer dans les rues pour la protection animale, contre le spécisme, contre les abattoirs, contre la consommation de viande, de poisson, et de produits d'origine animale. Et comme ces idées gagnent encore à être entendues, j'entends toujours les mêmes objections : le passant qui s'est arrêté pour prendre le tract et qui veut me parler prend soudain une grande inspiration, il fait un petit sourire malin, et en pensant faire une objection sûrement particulièrement intelligente et originale, il me dit exactement la même chose que le passant d'avant :

"Certes, les animaux souffrent, mais les légumes aussi ! Que savez-vous des sentiments de la patate, lorsqu'on l'arrache de la terre ?"
"Oui, nous mangeons de la viande sans en avoir besoin, mais nous avons toujours fait ça ! Les hommes préhistoriques mangeaient de la viande !"
"Mais pourquoi ressentir de la compassion pour les animaux ? Dans la savane, le lion mange les animaux !"

Force est de constater que, confronté à une militante de la cause animale, le passant moyen affirme vouloir rendre hommage au comportement de ses ancêtres préhistoriques, imiter le comportement du lion, et, surtout, ressentir d'étranges émotions face à de la salade.
Mais pour en revenir à l'argument du lion, pourquoi le lion ? Parfois, les passants se comparent à un autre animal, mais c'est toujours un fauve (le guépard est le deuxième animal le plus cité). S'il fallait choisir un carnivore, pourquoi pas le crocodile, ou le loup ? Pourquoi pas le vautour, puisque leur comportement alimentaire, à l'heure des supermarché, est peut-être plus proche de celui des charognards que des grands prédateurs ? Et surtout, pourquoi pas la gazelle - la vache, ou le cochon ?

Si les passants, confrontés aux militants de la cause animale, sont si prompts à s'identifier au lion, c'est, je pense, pour justifier à tout prix leur manque d'empathie face aux animaux qu'ils consomment chaque jour : le grand prédateur n'a visiblement pas la réputation de considérer avec empathie les autres animaux. "Ah, mais vous ne voulez pas que les humains consomment de la viande, et le lion, lui, vous allez l'empêcher de manger des gazelles ?" Non, d'abord parce que le lion est carnivore, et ne pourrait pas se passer de gazelles ; deuxièmement car le lion ne pourrait pas tirer de leçon morale de son sens de l'empathie. Nous, si. Et d'abord, qui vous a dit que le lion ne ressentait pas d'empathie ?

Frans de Waal, primatologue et éthologue, signe ici un très beau livre de vulgarisation sur l'empathie chez les animaux (et chez les humains aussi, j'entends). Nous apprendrons notamment que l'empathie se découvre à travers les phénomènes de reproduction des attitudes d'autrui (quand je souris, l'autre sourit ; si une foule tape des mains, impossible de taper des mains en décalé) ; mais aussi par la prise en compte des intérêts d'autres individus d'une même espèce ; et enfin, que les animaux même ressentent de l'empathie pour des individus d'autres espèces, qu'ils chercheront à aider sans pouvoir en attendre une quelconque rétribution.

L'ouvrage est truffé d'anecdotes aussi savoureuses que mémorables - mon coup de cœur va à l'histoire du chimpanzé qui, trouvant sur le sol de son enclos un oiseau mort, le prend soigneusement, monte en haut d'un arbre, déploie les ailes de l'oiseau comme s'il était un petit avion, et le lance de toutes ses forces, en espérant que l'oiseau puisse voler à nouveau.

Tout est clair, compréhensible, et les néophytes comme moi y apprennent énormément. Je n'avais jamais considéré que mes congénères du métro étaient si semblables aux babouins.

[Cameron · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading this book constantly reminded me of our arrogance to consider that animals are not conscious, feeling beings. The author, a primatologist, does a great job recounting decades of animal research to back up his claim that both humans and our related animal cousins have a long history of community, social structure and organization, and responsibility to that community. He does an excellent job providing empirical research evidence that demonstrates that many species, particularly the great apes, clearly show empathy towards one another; including caring for each other, sharing resources (sex too!), and playing politics. He makes the case that the source of our own empathic emotions are shared with our cousins dating back millions of years, perhaps tens of millions of years. This is a wonderful book if you love animals, believe that animals share our emotions, or care to learn more about how and why we developed our sense of caring for one another member of our species.

[Hákon Gunnarsson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the second book by Frans de Waal that I read, and I like his work so much that he is fast becoming one of my favorite non fiction writer. He is very good at writing about animals, and the research that is being done into their behavior, a subject that I’m quite interested in. He does it with a lot of anecdotes, and lot of reference to scientific research, in a writing style that is never dry.

In this book he is looking into animal emotions, but there is a twist. This book is written in the midst of the banking crisis that started in 2007, and he looks, among other things, into “economic” relationships between animals. The outcome is quite interesting. He is of course not the first writer to put up the parallel between humans and the way nature works, survival of the fittest and all that, but he has the science to back up his claims about how work and reward works in relationships in nature.

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Frans de Waal is (almost) singlehandedly turning upside down the long-held notion of humans (and other animals) as supremely selfish, concerned only with their own survival, and perhaps survival of their offspring. de Waal finds instead huge amounts of empathy, cooperation, and concern amongst species, amongst tribal and other groups, and amongst families. de Waal has studied primates for years, and just about everything we thought was unique to humans also shows up in monkeys. They can count, they share, they can admire themselves in the mirror, they can deceive other primates -- and so on down the list. Years ago there was a theory about what sets humans apart known as "homo ludens" -- in other words, we're different because we're the animal that laughs. Well, after reading de Waal's groundbreaking book, you'd be hard put to find anything that humans do that the other primates (and probably birds and even rats) can't do almost as well.

[Jennifer · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this for our "science book club" meeting, and we all agreed that this book was not up to snuff. It was like they sat the author down in a comfy chair and said "Just start talking, we'll put your ramblings together into a book." There was not structure or framework to the book -- no overriding thesis (other than maybe "empathy is good, chimps have empathy, people should be more empathetic" -- so it was difficult to pull apart and analyze his arguments. He doesn't present enough scientific context/background to give the reader a sense of what is generally accepted in the field, where there are disagreements, and where his personal beliefs intersect with what science has proved. And he makes huge leaps between observation ("I once saw a monkey give another monkey a hug") and lessons for mankind ("the election of Barack Obama is ushering in a new era of cooperation and mankind is on the brink of a new evolutionary step of civilization!"). If I had been reading this for pleasure, I might have enjoyed the author's reminiscences and stories more. But as a critical reader trying to understand how empathy in animals play out, and what impact this has for mankind, I was left extremely underwhelmed.

[Julie lit pour les autres · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ouf, contente de l'avoir terminé celui-là. Comment prendre un sujet fascinant et en faire un livre parfois indigeste? De Waal réussit plutôt bien le défi ici.

Ce n'est pas ma première escarmouche avec le style de Frans De Waal : j'ai lu il y a quelque temps son livre Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? (lecture parfois aride, mais vraiment passionnante). The Age of Empathy, publié quelques années auparavant, date déjà et cela fait un peu mal de le lire. Il a été écrit au moment où Barack Obama a été élu, et on sent l'immense espoir de l'auteur quant à l'impact que cet homme peut avoir sur la société américaine. Lire que l'auteur a espoir d'un meilleur équilibre social aux E.-U. en raison du discours empathique du nouveau leader fait mal, on va se le dire, surtout quand on regarde celui qui lui a succédé. Par ailleurs, De Waal émet quelques propos qui font sourciller, dont celui que l'immigration est "not a big deal", que les bateaux cercueils n'existent plus... Le livre a été publié en 2009. Peut-être que pour les primatologues néerlandais bardés d'honneurs, l'immigration n'est pas un big deal. Un drôle de manque d'empathie, drette là en commençant.

Mais quand on tombe dans le croustillant du sujet, c'est renversant. De Waal estime, dans la lignée des études et des recherches, que l'empathie humaine est aussi un produit de l'évolution, et que cette empathie existe chez nos cousins les primates. Avec de nombreux exemples tirés de recherches et d'expériences, l'auteur s'intéresse à l'émotion animale, à la sympathie, au sens de l'équité et de la justice (que les chimpanzés ont) et au soutien entre pairs. On comprend que pour éprouver de l'empathie, il faut être en mesure de faire la différence entre soi et les autres. On retrouve déjà les germes de son dernier livre : pour évaluer ce qu'un animal peut ou ne peut faire, il faut, en quelque part, se mettre à sa place, comprendre les enjeux de son territoire et de ses relations avec ses pairs.

Tsais, faire preuve d'empathie. Il en déplore le manque dans la communauté scientifique.

C'est le dernier chapitre qui est le plus percutant, à mon avis, puisque l'auteur propose que notre réticence à parler d'intelligence animale dépend plus de considérations religieuses que scientifiques. Il souligne aussi que ce sont souvent les traits hostiles que l'on reconnait comme génétiques (agressivité par exemple, ça déresponsabilise), et rarement les traits nobles. De Waal propose donc un modèle biologique de l'empathie bâti comme une poupée russe : il lui paraît absurde de confiner l'empathie à notre lobe frontal, la belle grosse affaire qui nous donne l'impression qu'on est le top de l'évolution. Refléter physiquement les émotions d'un pair (la contagion de l'émotion) est probablement la version la plus ancienne de l'empathie - et la plupart des animaux sont capables de le faire! Ensuite, consoler, réconforter sont des façons un peu plus sophistiqués d'exprimer l'empathie - les éléphants le font! Enfin, la capacité d'aider l'autre d'une façon ciblée représenterait l'empathie à son plus haut niveau de développement. Les humains le font oui, mais les primates à un moindre degré aussi.

L'empathie, conclut De Waal, n'a pas qu'un rôle biologique et relationnel : elle est souvent le moteur de la révolte qui pousse une société à exiger que la dignité des plus vulnérables soit considérée. Lire ceci à un moment de l'histoire où la haine prend toutes sortes de visages, où certains tirent fierté de leur égocentrisme et de leur insensibilité est déconcertant.

[Richard Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Many years ago I became interested in the biological and evolutionary basis for morality and how altruism could be consistent with Dawkins' idea of the selfish gene. The two ideas that everybody offered up back then were reciprocal altruism where I do something for you in the hope that you will do something nice for me later and the idea of kin selection where I benefit the reproduction of my own genes by helping people to whom I am related and who therefore carry some of my genes. Both ideas made some sense to me, but neither had enough power to explain the extent of observed altruistic behavior. Fortunately, I wasn't the only one to notice the need for better explanations and we have moved way beyond where we were when I first started reading in this area. Frans de Waal was one of the researchers who helped pave the way to a broader explanation. Humans and great apes are fundamentally social creatures and there are good reasons why evolution has favored our social development which includes a good measure of altruism.

In this book he discusses altruism, empathy, cooperation and fairness, focusing on apes and the lessons that ape society has for human society. He also includes discussions of other animals who exhibit behaviors that fit into these categories from mice to birds and beyond. It's all very interesting, and I found myself agreeing with most of his arguments, but the book, which was written more than a decade ago, is a bit behind more recent developments. For anyone who is interested in this area, I would recommend Michael Tomasello's fine book, "Becoming Human" which has a more up to date discussion of scholarship in these areas and includes appropriate nods to Mr. de Waal for his contributions to current thinking.

[Arash Kamangir · Rating 5 out of 5]

اصل جنس.

[SARAH · Rating 5 out of 5]

آیا ما حافظ برادرانمان هستیم؟ آیا غریزه ای برای شفقت داریم؟ یا همانطور که اغلب تصور می شود، ما فقط برای بقا و منافع خود روی زمین هستیم؟
فرانس دووال با مطالعه رفتارهای اجتماعی در حیوانات، مانند پیوند و غریزه گله نشان می‌دهد که حیوانات – و انسان‌ها – «از پیش برنامه‌ریزی شده‌اند تا دست دراز کنند». او دریافته است که شامپانزه‌ها از جفت‌هایی که توسط پلنگ زخمی شده‌اند مراقبت می‌کنند، فیل‌ها به بچه‌های مضطرب «صدای آرامش‌بخش» می‌دهند، و دلفین‌ها از همراهان بیمار نزدیک سطح آب حمایت می‌کنند تا از غرق شدن آنها جلوگیری کنند. از روز اول، انسان ها حساسیت های ذاتی به چهره، بدن و صدا دارند. ما طوری طراحی شده ایم که نسبت به یکدیگر احساس داشته باشیم.
نظریه دی وال با این فرض که انسان ها ذاتا خودخواه هستند، مغایرت دارد، که می توان آن را در زمینه های سیاست، حقوق و امور مالی مشاهده کرد. اما او خشم مردم از عدم همدلی دولت ایالات متحده در پی طوفان کاترینا را به عنوان یک تغییر چشم انداز قابل توجه ذکر می کند – تغییری که به باراک اوباما کمک کرد تا انتخاب شود و به عصر همدلی تبدیل شود. دووال پیشنهاد می‌کند از طریق درک بهتر ارزش بقای همدلی در تکامل، ما می‌توانیم با هم به سمت جامعه‌ای عادلانه‌تر بر اساس دیدگاه سخاوتمندانه‌تر و دقیق‌تر از طبیعت انسان پیش برویم. « دوران همدلی» که به نثر غیرمستقیم با انبوهی از حکایات، شوخ طبعی و هوشمندی تیزبینانه نوشته شده است، خواندنی ضروری برای روزگار ماست.
آزمندی چو بیرون رود، همدلی درآید.
دوران همدلی قصد دارد این پیام را برساند که طبیعتِ انسان دستِ یاریگر غول‌آسایی در این کارستان است. البته از زیست‌شناسی معمولاً برای توجیه جامعه‌ای مبتنی بر خودخواهی کمک می‌گیرند، ولی باید بدانیم که چسب همبستگی اجتماعات را نیز زیست‌شناسی فراهم آورده است. این چسب در میان ما و بسیاری از حیوانات یکسان است. همراهی با دیگران، هماهنگ کردن فعالیت‌ها، و رسیدگی به نیازمندان در انحصار بشر نیست. همدلی انسانی از پشتوانه‌ی تاریخ تکامل درازی برخوردار است ــ که معنی دوم «دوران» در اسم کتاب حاضر است.
کتابی که قلب ادمی را سرشار می کند... من قویا با تمام وجود خواندن این کتاب را به همه دوستانم پیشنهاد می کنم... اگر می خواهید ،در اصلاح نگاه جانبدارانه به نوع بشر و رهایی از خطای شناختی human bias قدمی بردارید این کتاب ،مشعلی است در میان تاریکی جامعه ای که همدلی و انسایت را با تعابیر بازار ازاد و کاپیتالیسم کمرنگ میکند این کتاب دریچه نو برای خودشناسی و درک خویشتن خویش است... همراه نویسنده به این سفر شگفت بروید،من قول می دهم از لحظه ی اغاز از همان صفحات اول،ذهن و قلب تان غرق در شگفتی و لذتِ اگاهی و کشف شود... سفری روشنایی بخش ذهن غبار گرفته ما در جامعه امروزی... در این عصر وحشت... از خودتان این لذت را دریغ نکنید.....

[Murali Behara · Rating 4 out of 5]

Indeed it is extraordinary how the horses and sled-dogs cooperate with each other and act in unison drawing the carriage or the sled at breakneck speeds, on cross-country pathways! Especially the blind-husky, Isobel who ran the lead tandem?! In Dutch bicycle-culture, it is very common for boys to offer girls a ride, because the girls have to hold on tight, and also lean with the rider says, Dr. Frans de Waal, who is a Dutchman himself, who continues, "On motorcycles this is even more critical. Their higher speed requires, deeper tilt in turns and lack of coordination can be disastrous. The passenger is a true partner in ride....". Very True! Guess for the same reason, I find partner-dancing (eg. Tango) so interesting (pardon my little digression). Another fascinating true story the author relates is apparently published in the Journal of New England Medicine. This was about Oscar the tom cat who made his rounds in a geriatric clinic in Providence, RI. The cat sniffed and observed each patient, strolling from room to room. When he decided someone is about to die, he curled up besides them, purring and gently nuzzling them. He left the room only after the patient has taken his/her last breath!

Here are some of the salient things in author's own words, that I've book-marked, and hope to recount for a very long time. "The appeal that elephants hold for humans is nothing less than astonishing and already witnessed in ancient Rome, not a place for squeamishness. Pliny the elder describes the way the crowd reacted to 20 elephants being savaged in an arena. When they had lost all hope of escape, they tried gain compassion of crowd, by indescribable gestures of entreaty, deploring their fate with sort of wailing, so much to the distress of public... that the public rose in body, bursting into tears and in unison started cursing the generals and heads of Pompeii. We humans are complex characters who form social hierarchies naturally, but at the same time we have an aversion to them and readily sympathize with others, unless we are threatened. We tolerate differences in income and standards of living, only up to a degree. We have deeply ingrained sense of fairness. The faith Danes(ref. people from Denmark), put in one another is called social capital, which may well be the most precious capital there is. In survey after survey, Danes have the world's highest happiness score. I saw people in America living in the kind of poverty that I knew only from the 3rd world! How could the richest nation in the world permit this? It became worse for me when I discovered that poor kids go to poor schools. How can a society claim equal opportunity, if location of one's birth determines quality of one's education and eventually quality of one's life. The obscene earnings of top 1% is back to the great depression levels and we have become, a winner takes all society, with an income gap that seriously threatens the social fabric. Europe is a more livable place and it lacks the giant under-educated, under-class of the United States. Marxism is founded on an illusion of culturally engineered human. Similar illusion plagued the US feminist movement, assuming gender roles are ready for a complete overhaul! The greatest problem today, of different groups rubbing shoulders on a crowded planet, is excessive loyalty to one's own nation, one's own ethnic-group, and one's own religion. Humans are capable of deep disdain for anyone who looks different or thinks in another way. When push comes to shove, groups do not hesitate to eliminate another! When asked about Iraqi civilian casualties, Donald Rumsfeld once said, well we do not do body counts on 'other people'.

Fostering empathy is not made easy by the entrenched opinion, in Law schools, Business schools and Political corridors, that we are essentially competitive animals. Conservatives who champion social Darwinism, miss the point by a mile, that we are deeply and innately social animals! Empathy is a part of our evolution. Humans must be biologically equipped to function effectively in many social situations without undue reliance on cognitive processes.

Ultimately the reluctance to talk about animal emotions has less to do with science than with religion, and particularly the religions that arose in isolation from animals! With monkeys and apes around every corner, no rain-forest culture has ever produced a religion, that puts humans outside of nature! Similarly in the east, surrounded by native primates in India and China, religions don't draw a sharp line between humans and other animals. Men may reincarnate as animals, and animals may attain divinity, like the monkey god Hanumaan. Only the Judeo-Christian religions place humans on a pedestal making them the only species with a soul. It is not hard to see how the desert nomads might have arrived at this view. Without animals holding up a mirror to them, the notion we are alone came naturally to them. They saw themselves as created in God's image and only intelligent life on the planet. It is extremely telling how westerners reacted when they finally got to see animals capable of challenging these notions! All of this occurred after western religion spread it's human exceptional-ism to all corners of the world.

Empathy engages brain areas that are more than a hundred million years old. Evolution added layer after layer, until our ancestors felt what others felt and also understood what others might want or need. It is put like a Russian doll.

Called the 5th horseman of apocalypse, dehumanization has a long history of excusing atrocities.

Although men are violent and territorial, men clearly do have empathy. Cross cultural studies claim female brains are more hardwired for empathy but men can be just as empathetic as women.

Why does the 'dismal science' attract so few female students and never produced a female Nobelist?! Could it be that women don't feel any connection to the caricature of a rational being, whose only goal in life, is to maximize profit? Where are human relations in all of this. Every individual is connected to something larger than itself. Those who depict this as contrived and not part of biology, don't have the latest neurological data on their side! The connection is deeply felt!

The role of compassion in society is not one of sacrificing time and money to relive the plight of others but also to push political agenda to elevate human dignity! One instrument that greatly enriches our thinking has been selected by ages, which means tested over and over with regard to it's survival value. That is our capacity to connect to and understand others and make their situation our own, the way Lincoln did when he came eye to eye with shackled-slaves in Ohio. To call upon this inborn capacity is only to any society's advantage"

Hence 4-stars!

[pourya bahiraei · Rating 5 out of 5]

رقص را در نظر بگیرید. طرف‌ها حرکات همدیگر را تکمیل می‌کنند، پیش‌بینی می‌کنند، با حرکاتشان یکدیگر را راهنمایی می‌کنند. رقص فریاد می‌زند «ما هماهنگیم!» و حیوانات میلیون‌ها سال است از این راه با هم پیوند پیدا کرده‌اند.

دوال نخستی‌شناس بود و عمده مطالعاتش معطوف به شامپانزه‌ها و بونوبوها می‌شد، اما در واقع رویکردی رو دنبال می‌کرد که دروازه جدیدی به درک رفتار و ویژگی‌های انسان باز می‌کنه.
اینکه شاید اگه به جای جدال روی کاغذ در مورد "ذات آدمی"، تو طبیعت سراغ پسرعموهایی بریم که تا ۹۹ درصد به ما شباهت ژنی دارن بتونیم بهتر بفهمیم کی هستیم.
یکی از اون مواردی که همیشه در موردش بحث و اختلاف‌نظر بوده، موضوع همدلی و دیگردوستیه. اینکه چقدر این صفات اختصاصی انسانن، چقدر در روند تکامل متاخر و جدیدن و از همه مهم‌تر آیا اصلا در بقای ما نقش مثبتی ایفا می‌کنن؟
دوال به طور مفصل اما در عین حال گیرا، با مثال‌هایی از نخستیان و سایر پستانداران نشون میده چطور همدلی در دل طبیعت شکل پیدا کرده و به تدریج فرم‌های پیچیده‌تری به خودش گرفته.
داستان‌هایی که از شکل‌گیری جامعه طبقاتی و سلسله مراتبی در نخستیان، میل اون‌ها به عدالت‌خواهی و درکشون از موضوعاتی اخلاقی مثل انصاف نقل میشه، در قدم اول سرگرم‌کننده و هیجان‌انگیزه اما نهایتا دستاوردی که بعد از پایان کتاب به‌جا می‌مونه امید به گونه انسانه.
امید به اینکه شاید هابز اشتباه می‌کرد و "انسان گرگ انسان نیست"

در دههٔ ۱۹۶۰ روان‌پزشکان آمریکایی گزارش دادند میمون‌های رِسوس از کشیدن زنجیری که غذا به آنها می‌داد، وقتی‌که به رفیقشان شوک وارد می‌کرد، خودداری می‌کردند. به این ترتیب میمون‌ها از موش‌ها که فقط مدت کوتاهی رفتارشان را متوقف می‌کردند سبقت می‌گرفتند. بعد از دیدن تأثیر رفتارشان روی رفیقشان، میمونی پنج روز دست به زنجیر نزد و میمون دیگری دوازده روز. این میمون‌ها واقعاً به خودشان گرسنگی می‌دادند تا رفیقشان درد نکشد.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Is it just me, or does current non-fiction contain way too many personal anecdotes. Do I really care about something that happened to your brother-in-law? "Hot, Crowded, and Flat" was chock full of them. The difference between that work and "The Age of Empathy" is that there is some actual science behind de Waal's work. The "Age of Empathy" is really about several different emotions and traits thought to be uniquely human like empathy, sympathy, self awareness, sense of fair play, and egalitarianism. The author outlines examples from the animal world that show these characteristics to be anything but unique. Most of the examples are with Chimpanzees which are of course our closest relative, but there are also interesting studies with elephants, crows, dogs, etc. I thought this book started out strong, was a little weak in the middle, but finished up extremely strong. The section on human egalitarianism was particularly fascinating. Egalitarianism is a trait we do not share with Chimpanzees. Chimps have a far more hierarchical social system. De Waal related a story about an alpha chimp who was blustering up to a big dominance display. Right in the middle of it, he comically slipped on a tree branch. De Waal was observing and laughed out loud, but he noticed none of the chimps did. They were all dead serious. Humans admire and respect there leaders, but also like to see them fall a peg or two on occasion. De Wall also finished with a great comparison of Europe and America from an immigrants point of view. He stressed that of the three pillars of the French Revolution "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity", The US always emphasized the first, Europe the second, but a truly happy society would probably focus on Fraternity. Another enlightening bit came in his conclusion where he described why religion has such a hard time accepting evolution. He states that only the monotheistic religions of the middle east are so fixated on human uniqueness where African and Asian religions do not draw such a hard line between humans and nature. The reason? There are no apes in the middle east. To the founders of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, we did indeed appear unique and special.

[Richard Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

borrow the book, read chapter 7, "crooked timber" for an excellent summary of what the author intents us to understand from his book. then read the whole thing. worthwhile reading.

the genre: science with a social purpose. first, to show us the latest science of empathy, and second to dispel the idea that humans are so unique to be a mountain range emerging from the plains of other creatures, but rather we are like a high peak surrounded by smaller ones, then foothills, then lower hills. those creatures like us; great apes, whales, dogs etc, differ not as much in kind but in amount.

it's an easy but interesting and informative read, don't let the label science distract you, written for that mythical average educated reader, it's consciously aimed to teach and to be rememberable, the author wants people to use what they learn from him and for us use it to alter our world to better shape it to what people are really like, versus false notions of human nature, not based on science but wishful thinking..

which is the theme, understand what we are like as a result of evolutionary pressures, by a study not only of people but of our nearer relatives, chimps etc, then use those lessons to understand how we live together in community through the essential elements of empathy. it's a good, most relevant book given the political demands of the right for dog eat dog unfettered capitalism, which the author notes in the last chapter but doesn't seem to enter into the analysis early, good thing, science as straight as possible without a lot of commentary.

[Jenni Holland · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Age of Empathy delves into social, economic, and political concerns of our time. By unlocking the the science of empathy in all mammals, Frans de Waal challenges the notion that greed and aggression are the dominate forces of human biology and survival. He gives of a new story of mammalian evolution, in which cooperation and empathy play a prominent role. Empathy becomes a much older and primal instinct, and much more relevant to our species.

Waal knocks down those who use the idea of "survival of the fittest" to excuse their behavior. From CEO's to politicians, religious leaders to economists Waal shows how social Darwinism has been used to defend greed and freeloading. He also points to how these policies have failed our society as we experienced in the hosing and banking crises, the fall of CEO's like Kenneth Lay, and trickle down economics. All the while connecting these human experiences to the experience of empathy in primate societies.

It is fascinating to read about the advances in science that are changing our understanding of animal cognition and emotion. It turns out that animals are much more like 'us' than we thought. So much of what we thought we knew was wrong and limited by poor experimental design. The distinction between human and ape is becoming more gray than black and white.

There is so much to think about and talk about after reading this book. It makes connections to so many different areas. I highly recommend it!

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chimps have it. Elephants have it. Wolves have it. De Waal suggests the reason we don’t recognize that empathy imbues at least the mammalian world is because of the Western world’s religious insistence that humans are outside of nature. He reports that when Queen Victoria first saw apes, she called them “frightful, and painfully and disagreeably human.’” (207). Lot lurking in that queenly observation.

De Waal believes that “empathy is a part of a heritage as ancient as the mammalian line. Empathy engages brain areas that are more than a hundred million years old. The capacity arose long ago with motor mimicry and emotional contagion, after which evolution added layer after layer, until our ancestors not only felt what others felt, but understood what others might want or need.” (208).

He suggests that empathy is like a Russian doll, with shells that fine tune and deepen its reach, and that psychopaths seem to have the shells without the “old mammalian core.” (211).

De Waal is not a fan of Ayn Rand.

[Kelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the first book I’ve read by Frans de Waal. It is written in simple, accessible language and is positively stuffed with provocative ideas and anecdotal stories. The premise, that empathetic behaviors and tendencies predate our evolutionary pedigree, directly addresses underrepresented views in both evolutionary biology as well as popular conceptions of our own animal nature. I found his unapologetic attitude about the political implications of his work to be personally refreshing and scientifically defensible. However, here’s what really sells the book: in casual conversation I found myself repeatedly (and indirectly) referencing “The Age of Empathy” as a touchstone for an astonishing array of tangential interdisciplinary topics. My only complaint is that I would have preferred a longer, more complex book on the subject.

[Brian Griffith · Rating 5 out of 5]

De Waal casually spins tales of the animals he's watched. Either by design or happenstance, large numbers of social incidents appear where the animals choose what to do. What if one monkey gets food, and the others get none? What if one falls in the water? What do they do when a fellow animal dies or if a bird hits the glass and gets stunned? The evidence of empathy, jealousy, or social conformity is plain to see, despite it being technically unscientific to mention it. While discussing these things, the author deals with accusations that he is biased in favor of fairness and empathy. He doesn't shy from comparing animal behavior to that of our business leaders and politicians. Basically, De Waal traces the evolution of empathy as a force for survival, with unfolding levels of emotional intelligence.

[Lauragais · Rating 4 out of 5]

Frans de Waal and Tanja Singer - The book "The Age of Empathy" is a light in the dark - there is no justification treating another living creature in contemptuous ways. Tanja Singer proves that empathy can be trained and learned and become part of our thinking and acting. We do not need to treat others badly to have personal gain. A very worthwhile thought, giving us hope that there is indeed a way to improve ourselves and make life more peaceful.

[Vera · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastisch boek! Frans de Waal neemt je mee in de wereld van de empathie in het dierenrijk. Politici gebruiken vaak "Het recht van de sterkste in het dierenrijk" om egocentrisch beleid te verantwoorden. De Waal legt misvattingen en onterechte vergelijking uit.
De methoden om empathie, begrip van zelf en anderen te meten bij dieren worden aan de hand van grappige en interessante voorbeelden toegelicht. Dit geeft een leuk kijkje in de wereld van gedragsonderzoek.
Hij beschrijft ook onderlinge verstandhoudingen van de bestudeerde groepen apen. Naast apen en de mens komen er ook andere diersoorten voorbij. De verschillende lagen van empathie worden uitgelegd met voorbeelden. Het leest heerlijk weg en ik heb ook nog eens veel geleerd. Een aanrader voor iedereen, voor biologen in het bijzonder.

[Poetic Diva504 · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book should get a quarter of a star. I ejected the cd from my car radio after the first sentence.

[Lethe · Rating 3 out of 5]

3,5 ⭐

[Book Shark · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Age of Empathy: Nature’s Lessons for a Kinder Society By Frans de Waal


“The Age of Empathy” is an interesting look at human empathy and what it can teach us how in becoming a better society. Dutch/American biologist with a Ph.D. in zoology and ethology and author of Our Inner Ape and others, Frans de Waal, takes the reader on a journey of empathy and its long evolutionary history. This provocative 306-page book includes the following seven chapters: 1. Biology, Left and Right, 2. The Other Darwinism, 3. Bodies Talking to Bodies, 4. Someone Else’s Shoes, 5. The Elephant in the Room, 6. Fair Is Fair, and 7. Crooked Timber.

Positives:
1. Engaging and well-written book that is accessible to the masses.
2. A fascinating topic in the hands of a subject matter expert, empathy.
3. Entertaining and insightful. The book is easy to follow. Professor de Waal is fair and even handed.
4. Includes sketches that complement the excellent narrative.
5. Format is easy to follow. Each chapter begins with a chapter-appropriate quote.
6. Clearly defines the main premise of this book. “There is both a social and a selfish side to our species. But since the latter is, at least in the West, the dominant assumption, my focus will be on the former: the role of empathy and social connectedness.”
7. Provocative ideas. “This is not to say that monkeys and apes are moral beings, but I do agree with Darwin, who, in The Descent of Man, saw human morality as derived from animal sociality.” “We descend from a long line of group-living primates with a high degree of interdependence.”
8. There are some statements that resonate and leave a mark. “At times of danger, we forget what divides us.”
9. Modern evolutionary theories. “Mutual aid has become a standard ingredient of modern evolutionary theories, albeit not exactly in the way Kropotkin formulated it. Like Darwin, he believed that cooperative groups of animals (or humans) would outperform less cooperative ones. In other words, the ability to function in a group and build a support network is a crucial survival skill.”
10. The link between empathy and kindness. “There exists in fact no obligatory connection between empathy and kindness, and no animal can afford treating everyone nicely all the time.”
11. Discusses key concepts such as yawn contagion. “Yawn contagion reflects the power of unconscious synchrony, which is as deeply ingrained in us as in many other animals.”
12. The importance of mimicry. “Not only do we mimic those with whom we identify, but mimicry in turn strengthens the bond.”
13. Sympathy versus empathy. “If Yoni were human, we’d speak of sympathy. Sympathy differs from empathy in that it is proactive. Empathy is the process by which we gather information about someone else. Sympathy, in contrast, reflects concern about the other and a desire to improve the other’s situation.”
14. Examples given of altruism in apes.
15. Helpful advice. “In 2006, a major health organization advised American business travelers to refrain from finger-pointing altogether, since so many cultures consider it rude.”
16. The concept of mutualism. “This suggests mutualism and reciprocity as the basis of cooperation, thus placing chimps much closer to humans than to the social insects.”
17. Income inequality, say what? “He believes that income gaps produce social gaps. They tear societies apart by reducing mutual trust, increasing violence, and inducing anxieties that compromise the immune system of both the rich and the poor. Negative effects permeate the entire society.”
18. The reality of empathy. “Empathy for “other people” is the one commodity the world is lacking more than oil.”
19. Evolution in a nutshell. “We may not be able to create a New Man, but we’re remarkably good at modifying the old one.”
20. Notes and bibliography included.

Negatives:
1. In a world looking for black and white conclusions this book offers a lot of gray areas that may not be as satisfying.
2. Repetitive.
3. Hard to live up to some of his other books.
4. Conservative-minded readers may have a tough time dealing with de Waal’s liberal bias.

In summary, this was a solid accessible book. Professor De Waal succeeds in educating the public on empathy. His mastery of the topic is admirable and is careful to be grounded on the facts and not to oversell an idea. Some minor quibbles like redundancy and many gray areas keep it from scoring higher but overall a worthwhile read. I recommend it!

Further recommendations: “Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?”, “The Bonobo and the Atheist”, “Our Inner Ape”, “Chimpanzee Politics” by the same author, “Animal Wise: How We Know Animals Think and Feel” by Virginia Morell, “Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect” by Mathew D. Lieberman, “Beyond Words: What Animals Think and Feel” by Carl Safina, “The Soul of an Octopus” by Sy Montgomery, “Animal Wise” by Virginia Morell, “Zoobiquity” by Barbara Natterson-Horowitz, “The Secret Lives of Bats” by Merlin Tuttle, and “Last Ape Standing” by Chip Walter.

[Levi Renninger · Rating 3 out of 5]

I consider myself fairly interested and adept in social and developmental psychology and this one was a bit boring and dry even for me, so if you’re not into either of those things this book is definitely not worth your time. The author does a remarkable job capturing years of observation and dozens of his personal experiments and encounters with chimps and projects these to society and politics along with the evolution of empathy. He offers unique insights on various animals abilities to communicate, collaborate, and recognize themselves but lacks depth connecting this to human evolution or appropriate modern examples, provoking thoughts, or calls to action.

[Señora · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lo mejor no es el libro que más me ha gustado de él por su mayor análisis político económico del ser humano pero, como siempre, ha sido sumamente interesante volver a sus estudios de los antropoides para poder conocernos. Conceptos tan grandes como la empatía, la compasión o la justicia se dan en estas reflexiones de un Frans de Waal de no hace mucho.

[Jonas van Eeten · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ik had graag gezien dat het sterkere filosofische gedeelte, zoals in het laatste hoofdstuk, iets meer naar voren kwam. Op een gegeven moment vond ik dat er meer dan genoeg voorbeelden waren gegeven dat apen over empathie en jaloezie beschikken. Ik wilde dit toegepaster zien op mensen of dieren. Al moet ik erbij zeggen dat mijn biologische achtergrond en daarmee interesse een beetje beperkt is t.o.v. de gemiddelde lezer.

Af en toe voelde ik me verrijkt met nieuwe inzichten. Vooral het hoofdstuk over het onbewuste imiteergedrag van zowel mens als dier was zeer interessant. De plaatjes waren volledig zinloos, maar het tempo was goed. De tekst is redelijk fijn om te lezen.

Verder wil ik er aan toevoegen dat zo'n boek over empathie zeer geschikt is om onder het mom van een smerig glimlachje te geven aan iemand wie je een subtiele hint wilt geven.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nature is well known as "red in tooth and claw." Yet many organisms exhibit remarkable cooperative behavior:

1. A cat makes daily rounds in a geriatric clinic in Providence, Rhode Island, sniffing and observing each patient, and then selecting one to curl up and purr beside. The cat has nurtured at least 25 patients, sensing with uncanny accuracy when one is about to die .

2. In an experiment at the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany, chimpanzees at a sanctuary in Uganda were shown a human unsuccessfully reaching through some bars for a plastic stick. Many of the tested chimps spontaneously came to help the person by picking up the item and handing it to them. They were not "trained" or "rewarded" for this assistance. The results held even when the experimenters increased the cost of helping, by requiring the chimps to climb a platform to retrieve the stick.

3. As a result of an explosion off the coast of Florida in 1954, a bottlenose dolphin was observed to be stunned -- it surfaced, listing badly to one side. Soon two other dolphins came to its side, buoying it to the surface in an apparent effort to allow it to breathe while it remained partially stunned, until their companion had recovered.

4. In 2005, a female humpback whale was spotted off the coast of California entangled in (and being injured by) some nylon ropes. Divers from a rescue team spent about one hour in a difficult (and treacherous) job of disentangling the whale. When the whale finally realized she was free, she swam in a large circle and nuzzled each diver in succession, evidently thanking them for their help.

These and numerous other examples that de Waal cites demonstrate clearly the author's point that nature is much more than "red in tooth in claw," but instead can teach us humans a great deal in how to cooperate and understand each other in an increasingly polarized world.

[Derrick Trimble · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ok. I did not read this book. So why am I posting it as read? To remind myself not to check it out again.

The title of the book, The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society, caught my attention. Empathy is certainly a characteristic that demands our attention in an increasingly non-empathetic world. My expectation was to find a rich source of study on empathy, qualitative engagement on how to raise levels of empathetic awareness, and yes a bit of how-the-animal-kingdom-does-it-better-than-us pandering. I was okay with that.

As is my habit, I tend to first read the preface or introduction to get a feel if I like that author's style of writing or if I can tolerate 200 plus pages of it. The preface gives me a gauge. If not red flags, I jump right in. If red flags, I do a chapter by chapter browse to see if the preface climate is a theme. That was the case here.

On the back cover the publisher states that the author writes with a wealth of anecdotes, wry humor, and incisive intelligence. What I discovered were subtle and not-so-subtle political sniping and positioning, aggrandizement of animal behavior and the trivialization of human behavior, and a steady wave of arguments against anthropomorphic phrases commonly (albeit invalid) applied to human behavior.

Had I read this book, I would have had to turn off my brain and ignore all these factors and other blatant agenda-oriented references. Using anecdotal references and observational science to declare the empathetic decline of humanity just doesn't fly.