When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals

by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, Susan McCarthy, Steven R. Schirripa

This national bestseller exploring the complex emotional lives of animals was hailed as "a masterpiece" by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas and as "marvelous" by Jane Goodall.

The popularity of When Elephants Weep has swept the nation, as author Jeffrey Masson appeared on Dateline NBC, Good Morning America, and was profiled in People for his ground-breaking and fascinating study. Not since Darwin's The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals has a book so thoroughly and effectively explored the full range of emotions that exist throughout the animal kingdom.

From dancing squirrels to bashful gorillas to spiteful killer whales, Masson and coauthor Susan McCarthy bring forth fascinating anecdotes and illuminating insights that offer powerful proof of the existence of animal emotion. Chapters on love, joy, anger, fear, shame, compassion, and loneliness are framed by a provocative re-evaluation of how we treat animals, from hunting and eating them to scientific experimentation. Forming a complete and compelling picture of the inner lives of animals, When Elephants Weep assures that we will never look at animals in the same way again.

Genres: Nonfiction, Animals, Science, Nature, Psychology, Biology, Wildlife

291 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1994

About the author

He has written several books books critical of psychoanalysis, psychotherapy and psychiatry as well as books on animals, their emotions and their rights.

He currently lives in New Zealand with his wife, two sons, three cats and three rats.

Reviews

[Jessaka · Rating 5 out of 5]

I grew up with dogs and cats, and dogs were my constant companions. I knew at a young age that dogs and cats had emotions, just as we do. When I was around 11 I read a book on animals and how everything they did was just pure instinct. I could not conceive of that idea. I had a veterinarian tell me that my dog, the 1 I loved and was dying from distemper, did not feel any pain. Well, I saw his pain. And when I lost him another dog came into my life, 1 of many. In the book I had read had also mentioned that animals can't see colors. It was years before I felt that That was also wrong.

In later years, I had a friend whose cat sat in front of the TV Watching Animal Kingdom. Shirley told me that when they had black and white TV the cat would get up during the commercials and then return when they were over with. Now, she said, her cat sits through the commercials. That was when I decided that cats and other animals could see colors.

Years later my husband and I had a border collie mix. She taught us more about animal emotions than any other animal ever had.1 day I was sitting on the couch working on a project when my dog came to the screen door and asked to come inside. I could not get up, but I knew that the back door was open and that it had no screen door I told her to go around, And she just looked at me. Then I told her again but also used my arm To make the motion of going to the back door. I did this a few times before I saw her eyes light up. That was when she ran around and came inside through the back door. She looked very proud of herself. Then one day my husband and I wanted to teach her how to play Frisbee. We threw the frisbee to her a few times, but she just stood there. Then I told my husband that I wanted to throw the frisbee to him a few times and then I would throw it to Megan. That worked. She became a great frisbee dog. And I rather thought that she was a great thinker. And she had another emotion that I did not realize dogs had. I used to give her the last bite of everything I ate. 1 day I forgot to give her the last bite. She walked away, stopped, and then she turned to me and gave me the most dirty look that I had ever seen.

This was a wonderful book. My favorite story was that of an ape that sat in front of a beautiful sunrise and watched it until dark.

[Karen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I wasn’t sure what I was going to get myself into when I saw this book when it was donated to my Little Free Library Shed. I love the book title, and I love the book cover picture.

Personally, I have always felt such a strong connection about how animals feel – believing that they do indeed have feelings. I have witnessed this with my dogs. Their sensitivity to me. Their reactions to how I am doing, and even when something has happened to one of their pack members. So, I was curious what the author might say.

His co-author is a science writer. Does that also give him as an author some credibility? I don’t know that his credentials necessarily relate to his subject matter (Ph.D. in Sanskrit), but, do mine when I speak of my dogs? I have a Master’s degree in Education with an emphasis on Leadership. Do you think that will matter to my dogs? 🧐

What I understand is that this book’s simple message is that animals have feelings. Though sensitive people like me have no trouble with this idea, as I have mentioned, scientists, do, according to the author. They may study animal behavior, but not necessarily their emotions.

And, there is a difference between behavior and emotions. If we consider the definition of behavior – it is the way in which an animal acts in response to a particular situation. In contrast, the definition of emotions would be a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one’s circumstances, mood, or relationship with others. Hmmm…🤔

The problem is the book never really gives us much of a distinction between behavior and emotions, even if it wants to show us all the big emotions, like, fear or hope or terror or love or grief or sadness, et al. And, how the animal participates in each.

Thus, does it really scientifically prove that the stories the author is sharing are anything more than interpretations?

And, does that make every animal emotion story the author share subjective?

As touching as some of those animal stories were, they didn’t seem to have much depth. Mr. Masson shares…

“Feelings just are. They justify themselves.”

He is right about that, too. Oliver, my corgi tells me that all the time. I should just believe Oliver. Right?

[Ethan Fixell · Rating 1 out of 5]

so disappointing. i had such high hopes. but every page was like, "maybe animals have feelings. but we're not sure yet. i mean, cats seem to. but who knows? elephants look like they're crying sometimes. are they really? we may never find out."

trash.

[Danna · Rating 4 out of 5]

[Readers note: the author is a professor of Sanskrit and a trained Freudian analyst who has a passion for animals and exploring our relationships to animals from a philosophical point of view. He is not a practicing biologist, animal behaviorist, or any other -ist within the zoological/anthropological realm. I believe his intent is to help make this area of science more compelling, interesting, and accessible to the lay public. Best to read it with that understanding in mind.]

I fell right into this book from page one of the prologue. My inner dialog was so loud and persistent I had to take notes on paper to help myself focus more clearly on what I was reading; it felt good to be so actively interactive with a book! About halfway through chapter one, though, I realized I definitely wasn't part of the target audience. Back when I worked at the public library I became hooked on non-fiction, and I've always loved the life sciences in particular, so I'm already very familiar with the topic. Despite feeling like I was being beaten over the head with his strident arguments, I still found myself cheering Masson for writing such a passionate book, and I was happy to overlook some of his more specious generalizations knowing the intent was to convince folk who hadn't really thought about this topic before that it's one worth embracing and exploring more deeply. The thing I couldn't get away from, however, was my need to shout: "...in Western scientific traditions!" after each of his assertions that there is "..almost no investigation...in the modern scientific literature," or "...the worst of ethological sins - anthropomorphism." At least he did mention Jane Goodall and Frans de Waal, and again, de Waal's research was not really the point of this book. It did make me hungry to read " The Ape and the Sushi Master" again, where de Waal does explore the limitations of Western science and how Eastern scientists have a much more holistic approach that includes recognizing the sentience and emotional expressions of other animals.

[George Ilsley · Rating 5 out of 5]

First published in 1988, this book helped to break down the walls between the unfeeling brutes we considered to be “only animals” and the highly evolved primates we considered exclusively capable of compassion, empathy, grief, and self-awareness.

Today, it no longer seems controversial to assert that animals have feelings. This book is a good blend of science and anecdote, woven together with psychological insight. We have so much to learn about ourselves from animals, and so much still to learn about our place in this world.

It’s funny to note I have a shelf for Cats, but no shelf for Animals in general or any other individual animal. What does that say about me I wonder! 😻

[C · Rating 2 out of 5]

While I agree with the principles in this book, that's all I agree with. There are several reasons.

First and most obvious to many who read it: he has a huge amount of anger towards scientists. I can appreciate this to a large extent, animals have been and are still used in experiments which are horrible. His anger has transcended the normal boundaries to become fanatical. The problem with this is twofold. On the one hand he often makes generalizations which are not always fair (his attacks on animal behaviorists are often off the mark), on the other hand it gets boring after a couple of chapters. He begins to sound like a parrot who knows how to say many things but insists on yelling "scientists are evil, scientists are evil" at all hours of the day.

Second, his arguments are mainly annecdotal. This is often necessary and the author does explain the difficulties in studying emotions otherwise. The problem is that such stories often have multiple interpretations. One example is a story he gives about a boy saved from a venemous snake by a mongoose. He gives this as proof of love- that the mongoose killed the snake because it loved the boy. That is certainly a possibility but is it the only one? After all mongooses kill snakes in the wild all the time. If he could offer proof that mongooses only do so in the presence of family that would be stronger but he doesn't. I don't know if such research exists for mongooses but there is compelling evidence in ground squirrels. Even then, saying it is from love is difficult. It could be (I think they feel love for their families) but it can't be proven. Culture can also play a role in how we read these events but Mr. Masson ignores all these uncomfortable questions.

Finally and most disturbingly, the author misrepresents at least two of his sources. I have read both the Bledsoe and schaller books which he refers to and he misrepresents their statements in the book to give more weight to his arguments. If he did it for them, what about his other sources?

The author attempted to deal with a opic previously inexplored in our culture and he should be commended for that. Unfortunately in most other ways this book fails. I previously recommended this book to friends with an interest in the topic (with the caveat to read it and still think for themselves) but now that Marc Bekoff has published "The Emotional Lives of Animals" I plan on reading that one and hope that I will be able to whole-heartedly recommend that one instead.

[Andrew Sydlik · Rating 5 out of 5]

- A mother giraffe fends off a lion for an hour to defend her child.
- A male chimpanzee dies shortly after his mother.
- Koko the gorilla cares for a “pet” kitten she names “All Ball.”
- A male falcon displays uncharacteristic behavior, including sounds that sound like cries of anguish, when his mate is killed.
- A gorilla who is given orange juice as a treat, gives it instead one day to a researcher who complains of a stomach ache. When she returns ten days later, the gorilla insists on the researcher drinking her juice until reassured that the stomach ache is gone.
- And of course, the thing that gives this book its title: elephants have been seen to cry on numerous occasions.

Is this definitive proof that animals show emotions? Not necessarily, but they are characteristic of the examples given in this book, which is more of a challenge to our attitudes toward animals, and our reluctance to explore the whole question of emotion in animals. The authors point out that seals have been seen to shed tears while watching their children being clubbed to death, but since seals frequently shed tears, this isn’t conclusive proof of emotion. However, this doesn’t mean that the seals don’t feel sad. I’m sure there are more compelling examples in the book than the ones I have listed.

I think that the reader should keep in mind that, despite the enormous amount of data we have about other animals, there is still much mystery to their behavior and cognitive functions. These things, particularly emotion, are so little well-understood in humans, that our knowledge is woefully lacking when it comes to non-human animals. However, this book reinforces that point while also pointing to documentation that challenges the preconceptions that tend to be voiced in academia, especially in the biological sciences.

After looking at some negative reviews, I feel I ought to add in my thoughts of why I think some of the negative criticism is unfair.

The most overwhelming criticism I am seeing is that the authors criticize scientists to the point of hostility and denigration. It is true that the tone does border on the antagonistic when it comes to certain dismissals of animal emotion, or in cruelty to animals justified by science. However, I heartily enjoy science books and am, usually a defender of scientific pursuit in general, and I was not bothered by this. To me, there is a much needed confrontation of the dismissive attitudes of many scientists regarding animal emotion. The issue of the ethics of animal experimentation for scientific research is, I think, one of the most pressing and complex ethical issues facing scientists today; and one’s beliefs regarding animal emotion will figure significantly into one’s attitude toward animal experimentation. I don’t think a watered down tone is appropriate here; the authors are challenging intractable and, it is hard to put this in a way that won’t be considered an ad hominem attack, insensitive behavior.

The second complaint I see is that the authors are dogmatic and unequivocally accept animals display emotions in situations that are ambiguous at best. While at times I did think that the authors were reading an emotional motive where there was none, I always stopped to reflect on the fact that 1) they almost always use tentative language—could, maybe, perhaps, etc., rather than giving statements such as “this is obviously an example of animal emotion, which the evil scientists have denied against all reason and compassion,” which is what many of the negative reviews seem to imply; 2) even in someone who is very sympathetic to this viewpoint such as myself, I find myself resisting the idea of emotion in animals, because truly acknowledging such would lead to a radical change in many societal attitudes and behaviors that we take for granted, even in those of us who think we are kind to animals. If we, as a society, were confident in the truth of the premise of this book, we would be beating down the doors of the slaughterhouses, animal testing labs, and circuses of the world.

There isn’t a large amount of literature on this subject, but some have recommended other books over this one that sound intriguing.

The value I see in this book is not solid, scientific proof of emotions in animals, but a much-needed challenge to our assumptions. In situations that may seem unclear, I think it’s perfectly justified to ask, “Did the animal feel emotion when doing that, or was it simply an unfeeling act of instinct?” The problem is, we are so inured to assuming the latter, that one may not even consider the possibility that both instinct and emotion are acting. One interesting example from the book: an elephant tries to rescue a baby rhino stuck in the mud, even when the mother rhino attacks the elephant, in defense of her baby. Rhinos have bad eyesight, so the mother did not realize the baby was stuck, even though it heard it and knew it was in trouble. Was the mother acting out of love in defending her child (even though it was misguided), or was this simply a biological imperative to protect one’s genes? Can’t both be true? And for the elephant, was its rescue attempt true altruism, trying to help a completely unrelated animal, even after being attacked by the mother? Or had the baby’s distress activated a “protect the child” instinct, even when not related (it seems that animals will often have protective and nurturing behavior towards children even of completely unrelated species)?

My only complaint is that the majority of the instances of possible animal emotions are in mammals. This is understandable given that other mammals are the most likely to behave like humans, and they do give some cases of birds, and even briefly touch on insects and arachnids, but I think that some more examples among reptiles, amphibians, and fish could have been given. But this is a small caveat, since data on those groups is probably much rarer.

The instances given, while often open to interpretation, do provide situations, of which at least some, cannot fail to startle the reader, and challenge some preconception about what animals (or at least that kind of animal) are capable. I would also think the authors make a good point in turning the charge of anthropomorphism on its head: is it necessarily anthropomorphic to ascribe emotions to non-human animals if these emotions, like physical characteristics, can be demonstrated to be shared with non-humans? Also, they do well in pointing out that allowing the possibility of emotions in animals does not only mean giving them emotions we want, saying that they are only loving and kind, or only cruel and aggressive; we should not also assume they have only primitive emotions, or can experience the same emotions human have, or in the same way. The authors make the case that clearly more investigation and open-mindedness is needed, and that emotion even among humans is not well understood, especially scientifically. After more reflection and investigation, we need to face our own attitudes and behavior towards animals and adjust them accordingly.

[Tippy · Rating 1 out of 5]

Repetitive. No science. Reads something like this-scientists suck because I think my pets have feelings and they really do because I can just tell and how can anyone say they don't? Also, other people think their pets have feelings. So there. Flawless argument. Horribly misinterprets or over interprets behaviors and actions. Everything right up to the looks dogs give and of course, from a look you can read their mind because it's not possible they could be thinking anything other than the anthropomorphic (oh, that naughty word) thoughts you have assigned to them (He literally does say that his interpretation is the only logical one). Given that humans can't even read other humans' thoughts from a look most of the time, his cross-species mind-reading skills are truly impressive. Recommend "Animals in translation" or "A parrot's lament" if you want a good book on animal emotions and intelligence, backed by science (You know, studies done by those scientists who hate animals and are stupid and don't think that animals have emotions. Seriously, has he seen any animal research in the last 3-4 decades?) and written much better, while still being interesting and touching. Also, anything about Alex the grey parrot. He was awesome.

[Darcie · Rating 2 out of 5]

About as scientific as Googling "amazing animal stories." Had some good anecdotal evidence, but in the end, the answer to the question "Do animals have emotions?" still remains "maybe." The reader must take into account while reading this that the author is not an animal psychologist, but a vegetarian with a PhD in Sanskrit. Seriously.

[Carrie · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was hoping this would be more like "Animals in Translation: Using the Mysteries of Autism to Decode Animal Behavior," with lots of interesting facts backed up with evidence. Instead, it reads like an essay arguing that ethologists are all wrong because they don't ascribe animals' actions to emotional causes. Granted, I didn't read the whole book, but the part I did read repeated itself over and over. I felt like I was being beaten by a dead, unhappy horse.

[Julie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful book. It illustrates that humans are not the only emotionally intelligent animal. Elephants have spindle cells (sp?) as human and only a few other creatures (dolphins, whales, primates and I'm forgetting some). These pink/banana shaped cells are thought to be responsible for empathy.

I think the key point is that those that state that animals have no emotion are doing so sans empirical evidence. Those that profit from objectifying animals are without authority as the conflict of interest is too huge

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like this book, warts and all. It feels like a friend. Or maybe as if it were written by a friend. Someone whose personal grudges against their former career emerge unexpectedly. But i admire Masson's passion for righting intellectual wrongs. His desire to challenge the dominant way of thinking about humans as [Not Animal] as compared with [Animal].

For my money, the following quote encapsulates the main message:

[It] is vital to treat animals as members of their own species. Treating them as either machines or people denigrates them. Acknowledgment of their emotional lives is the first step; understanding that their emotional lives are their own and not ours is the second. At the same time, if humans have no peers as cognitive beings and creatures of elaborate cultures, as emotional beings we are anything but alone.... Human life cannot be understood without emotions. To leave questions of animal emotion as forever unapproachable and imponderable is arbitrary intellectual helplessness.

In short: We're animals, y'all!

My three takeaways from skimming top-rated reviews, focusing predominantly on the harshest 1- and 2-stars: (1) Boring. (2) Repetitive. (3) Not scientific (special subset: criticizes scientists but isn't written by a scientist). I won't attempt to challenge 3, because (a) i'm not a scientist and (b) i can't think of a scientific way to challenge it.

Perhaps if i shared a random paragraph from each chapter with you, the prospective reader, then you could decide in advance whether to expect to assess this book as boring or repetitive. I hope 12 paragraphs doesn't exceed fair use.

PROLOGUE p.xx
Comparative psychology to this day discusses observable behavior and physical states of animals, and evolutionary explanations for their existence, but shies away from the mental states that are inextricably involved in that behavior. When such states are examined, the focus is on cognition, not emotion. The more recent discipline of ethology, the science of animal behavior, with its insistence on distinctions between species, also seeks functional and causal, rather than emotive, explanations for behavior. The causal explanations center on theories of "ultimate causation"—the animal pairs because this increases reproductive success—as distinguished from "proximate causation"—the animal pairs because it has fallen in love. Although the two explanations are not necessarily mutually exclusive—one of the best-known figures of ethology, Konrad Lorenz, spoke confidently of animals falling in love, becoming demoralized, or mourning—the field as a whole has continued to treat emotions as unworthy of scientific attention.

UNFEELING BRUTES p.33
In a science dominated by men, women have been deemed especially prone to empathy, hence anthropomorphic error and contamination. Long considered inferior to men precisely on the ground that they feel too much, women were thought to overidentify with the animals they studied. This is one reason why male scientists for so long did not encourage female field biologists. They were too emotional; they allowed emotions to sway judgments and observations. Women, it was felt, were more likely than men to attribute emotional attitudes to animals by projecting their own feelings onto them, thereby polluting data. Thus did gender bias and species bias converge in a supposedly objective environment.

FEAR, HOPE, AND THE TERRORS OF DREAMS p.56
Mountain goat nannies vigilantly try to prevent their kids from taking dangerous or fatal falls. According to Douglas Chadwick, nannies try to stay on the downhill side of their kids, both when the kids are moving about and when they sleep. Due to the exuberance of the kids, the nannies must watch constantly. Chadwick notes of one mountain goat, "I could hear her literally cry out when the baby took a hard spill, and she would rush over to lick and nuzzle it, and then encourage it to nurse." The mother's cry is very like a human reaction to seeing someone fall, and it tells a perfect story of empathy.

LOVE AND FRIENDSHIP p.70
As young mammals grow older, their parents often feed them. Some animals simply let the young steal pieces of their own food, while others bring food to the young. An ocean bird may begin by regurgitating partially digested food for its chick. When the chick is older, the parent shifts to bringing whole fish, which it holds until the chick manages to grab it properly. As baby animals grow bigger, most of them play, sometimes with their littermates and sometimes with their parents. As anyone who has observed kittens or puppies knows, young animals can be rough on adults. Biologists studying wild dogs in Africa commented that when the dogs brought food to a mother and her three-week-old puppies, the pups were aggressive in taking their share. If their mother had a chunk of meat a pup wanted, it would tweak the side of her face with its sharp teeth and she would let go. Older pups followed hunting adults and took over the carcasses of prey, sometimes even nipping the adults on the rear to make them leave faster.

GRIEF, SADNESS, AND THE BONES OF ELEPHANTS p.104
Comparatively few depressed humans became so through being placed in solitary confinement for half their childhoods or by being raised in solitary confinement and then tortured by peers. Oddly enough, the argument on the part of the scientists conducting these experiments has been that animals are so similar to us in their feelings that we can learn about human depression by studying animal depression. But this raises the important ethical question asked by many animal rights groups: If animals suffer the way we do, which is the whole justification for the experiments, is it not sadistic to conduct them? Clearly the animals can be made deeply unhappy, but this fact could have been observed under naturally occurring conditions, without subjecting sensitive creatures to pointless cruelty.

A CAPACITY FOR JOY p.111
In an account of this episode, dolphin biologist Kenneth Norris focused on the state of the trapped dolphins, persuasively arguing that their behavior demonstrated not apathy but deep fear. Equally compelling is the joy of the freed dolphins, springing through air and water.

RAGE, DOMINANCE, AND CRUELTY IN PEACE AND WAR p.148
If predators are not seen to torture and delight in the suffering of their prey, they might still enjoy the suffering of one another. It would not be straying from a known pattern to hypothesize that the target of real cruelty is a creature's very nearest—its family or the members of its group. Are cats cruel to other cats? Do foxes ever take pleasure in being cruel to foxes, hyenas to hyenas? Little evidence is available. Certainly hyenas and foxes act cruelly to conspecifics at times. Even when young, littermates may attack and even kill each other. It is easy to argue that there is an ultimate evolutionary benefit to the killer, but harder to guess what the killer feels.

COMPASSION, RESCUE, AND THE ALTRUISM DEBATE p.166
Asked whether he was surprised at Washoe's actions, Fouts paused, bemused. "Only later, when that theory came out and people said that there's no such thing as altruism. But prior to that...." He burst out, "You know, I was about to do the same thing. I didn't know the chimp that well either, and I was headed down into the water, too, taking my wallet out of my pants and getting ready to go in after her. Washoe beat me to it. So I guess I was responding to the same stimuli Washoe was—individual in trouble." Unfortunately, how the other chimpanzee behaved toward Washoe after being rescued is unknown. Fouts also cited a case in which an adult chimpanzee at the Detroit Zoo fell into a moat. The keepers were afraid to go in after him because adult chimpanzees are so strong, but a zoo visitor leaped in and saved the ape.

SHAME, BLUSHING, AND HIDDEN SECRETS p.185
On the other hand, it may be true that the function of blushing is not, or not wholly, a visual one. The phenonenon of blushing need not be visible. Many people feel tingling skin—and shame—without visibly reddening. If people flushed, paled, and turned green with the frequency found in fiction, the society would be a much more colorful place. Perhaps many species of animals blush unnoticed. No one has checked to see if, under the fur, a raccoon tingles with mortification or flushes with pride. Whether macaws also blush on the parts of their bodies covered by feathers or whether other parrots flush beneath their feathers is unknown. But even if they do not, it does not necessarily follow that if animals do not blush, they do not feel shame.

BEAUTY, THE BEARS, AND THE SETTING SUN p.195
If the peahen is not thought of as a calculating gene-shopper, what can an evolutionary approach suggest is going on? If the proximate cause is that she admires the peacock's tail because she finds it beautiful—and in humans it takes neither a powerful intellect nor extensive aesthetic training to do this—then she may mate with him, which has the ultimate result of selecting the male with the best genes. While human beings occasionally refer to others in terms of their genetic potential, this is not what is typically thought to go through the mind of a person smitten with either lust or love.

THE RELIGIOUS IMPULSE, JUSTICE, AND THE INEXPRESSIBLE p.225
Scientific humility suggests that complete understanding of other animals may be impossible. But we will come far closer if we do not begin by insisting that we already know more than we do about what characteristics they do not have. To learn about other animals, they must be taken on their own terms, and these terms include their feelings.

CONCLUSION p.232
Jane Goodall points out that "chimpanzees differ genetically from Homo sapiens by only about 1 per cent, and that while they lack speech, they nevertheless behave similarly to humans, can feel pain, share our emotions and have sophisticated intellectual abilities." She pleads that we stop enslaving, imprisoning, incarcerating, and torturing them, and instead protect them from exploitation.

[Mohammad Awny Hamouda El-Mesallamy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although the book is interesting and have a lot of good points but I have few remarks, As a Muslim there was always a verse in Quran about animals and insects that could be translated to Surah al-an ’am ayah“(38) And there is no creature on [or within] the earth or bird that flies with its wings except [that they are] communities like you. We have not neglected in the Register a thing. Then unto their Lord they will be gathered.” Which indicates that animals or insects or any creature is a soul with in a community.
Sometimes people tend to make Science as a religion – a systems of beliefs- by saying science is an objective and just way of thinking and perceiving the world, while I see it as a defective tool of perceiving the world.
This book addresses one of the points of science deficiency “what science can’t see or measure doesn’t exist and shouldn’t be mentioned and best be ignore“. Emotions in animals is obvious to the naked eye but not to science.
Of course the book didn’t ask questions like does carnivorous feel guilty to eat meat and slaughtering animals they eat and the relation between that and human behavior. Because that would weaken his argument. Also, he didn’t talk about the medication that human beings had gained through medical experiments on animals – which he could had benefited himself because again it can weaken is argument.
Why do every western cultured person should mention the Jews and Nazis while they don’t mention the Jews –Israeli- killing and slaughtering Palestinians and putting them in camps like animals – may be because the writer as every cultured European- perceive animals are much worthy than a third world citizen and also see Jews as more human than the lot they kill. The second writer I read – other than Haruki Murakami- that used the same way of allegory although there is a lot of cruelties in the history of mankind – may be it gives advantages to kiss Jews ass while it wasn’t necessary at all to do so.
There is a lot about the subject I would like to take about, as the way the book was organized – I wished to read the stories of each animal separately so that you can feel the life the animal lived, scattering the animals stories may be was because of the way the writer wanted to build the argument but it did hurt the consistency of each animal stories and confused me as a reader – may be a book about the life’s of the animals will be more convincing and consistent.

[Amanda Hupe · Rating 3 out of 5]

“I learned that there was almost no investigation of the emotional lives of animals in modern scientific literature. Why should this be so? One reason is that scientists, animal behaviorists, zoologists, and ethologists are fearful of being accused of anthropomorphism, a form of scientific blasphemy.”

WHEN ELEPHANTS WEEP
When Elephants Weep by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson is one of the book that is on my Summer Reading List of 2021. You don’t have to be an animal lover to know that animals have emotions. If you are an animal lover then there is probably no doubt in your mind. The sections of this book are broken up into emotions like joy, shame, compassion, and love. This book evaluates animals to shine a light on their emotional lives.

“Human beings are not always aware of what they are feeling. Like animals, they may not be able to put their feelings into words.”

WHEN ELEPHANTS WEEP
Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics to animals. We see it often. I do it all the time with my dog, Xerxes. Sometimes when he wants extra dinner, he will pick up his bowl in his mouth and toss it at the wall. I will say to him, “Hey now, I will have none of that sass.” There is a difference though between actual emotions and attributing human characteristics. The author does not appreciate when professionals are adamant about not being able to get real scientific evidence without using anthropomorphism. However, I really appreciated when he cited Jane Goodall– I think we can all agree, that is an expert on the subject. So in reality, I can see both arguments.

I loved all of the examples the author provided. My heart jumped when he mentioned Koko the gorilla, who actually knows how to sign. If you haven’t seen the videos of Koko interacting with Robin Williams, I highly suggest you look up the videos on YouTube. Be prepared for all the tears. Overall, I do think it is egotistical to think we are superior to animals.

“Humans have historically been much concerned with distinguishing ourselves from beasts.”

WHEN ELEPHANTS WEEP
The book moved at a great pace and as I said, I enjoyed all the examples. But sometimes it did get a little repetitive. Overall, it is an excellent read for those who love and appreciate animals. 3 out of 5 stars!

[Patty Tsao · Rating 5 out of 5]

When Elephants Weep – The Emotional Lives of Animals
By Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and Susan McCarthy
Review by Patty Tsao
The nonfiction "When Elephants Weep – The Emotional Lives of Animals" by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and Susan McCarthy is an interesting book that demonstrates a thorough and special view on animal behaviors and emotions that humans often ignore. This whole book is like a research paper with lots of fascinating experiments and amazing stories that will give you a deep impression on the topics and change your view on animals.
The author does a great job convincing the readers that animals have emotions. Because animals cannot talk, they cannot express their feelings and emotions through oral description. The only way humans can understand their emotions is by observing their gestures and behaviors. But humans often interpret animal behavior based on themselves, there are lots of errors when discussing animal emotions. For example, people think that a dolphin is happy just because it looks like it is smiling, but that is just how dolphins look like and how their jaws develop. Furthermore, the controversial topic of zoo is repeated throughout the book. Humans need to considered the possibility that animals miss using their talents and skills in the wild, that they might favor their freedom over the safety in the zoo.
Upon close reading, the author uses strong words like captive, tyranny, and hierarchy to reflect upon the facts that humans' sense of superiority and behaviors are hurting animals. Other words like romantic, friendship, and love emphasize the significance of the animal emotions. The author argues that if humans have feelings, animals should also have feelings. If humans do not like being locked in prisons, why do we lock animals in zoo? The overall theme of this book is about animal emotions. How and why humans often ignore the feeling of animals and judge animals from their own perspective. As humans, we do not normally reflect upon our actions and consider what our actions might bring about to others, which makes this book special and entertaining as we learn things that we never considered or know before.
I feel like this book is very unique and peculiar. The whole book contains so many little experiments and real stories that are really convincing and exciting to back up the author's points, and those little pieces fit together perfectly to support the overall theme. While reading this book, sometimes you feel very sad about how animals are shot and killed by the hunters and how they are treated in the laboratory, but you also feel happy and warm at stories of family reunion and some fun facts. Overall, this book is full of surprises and meaningful questions that can make readers think deeply afterward. Most importantly, it is about a new topic that is rarely being discussed, which makes this book very enjoyable.

[Christina Stind · Rating 4 out of 5]

The argument in this book is that because animals have feelings, we ought to treat them better.
The argumentation takes form as various case stories which the author then analyzes and shows can be explained better if you take animal emotions into account than if you leave them out. To a certain extent, the author is successful in presenting this argument.
The book basically reads as a long emotional plea to other people to realize that animals are sentinent beings in their own right with their own feelings and desires and that we should treat them with respect. For me, various parts of the book made me smile and other parts made me feel ashamed to be human. It taught me things about animals I didn't know and reinforced my opinion, that if you just get to know them there are so much more hidden behind the fur than what you can see with just a glance.

[Marie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This could easily be a five star book, as I believe it can change the life ofmany people who do not give enough credit to animals. However in my case I was already in agreement with the fact that animals do have emotions and feel just as much as we do, so it was not a life changing book per say.
However this book is very intelligent. It's well written, very scientific in its approach, and while at times can be a bit snarky, is justifiably so. This is not the feel good "let's read stories about animals" kinda book though, while the stories are there, it is, again, scientific in its approach and it a good theory book. However it is written in a style that all can read, very approachable.
I would definitely recommend this book to everyone.

[Kathy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating read. Learned so many interesting facts about various animals.

I loved the elephant saving her calf during s flood

[Timothy Rooney · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is ultimately disappointing. It does start with examining some philosophical perspectives such as solopsism--one can only know one's self as a sentient being. And I recognize the cursory obligation to consider dismissing these perspectives. The problem is that this portion of the book would have been the place to detail what needed to be established to demonstrate emotion in animals. Since this foundation is never established, the author presents all arguments through the first few chapters and then resigns himself to, "but we can't really know." Well, if you initially establish foundations for what we need to "know," then yes, we CAN know animal emotion.

Next, the book gets to the later chapters and assumes the conclusion that animals do indeed exhibit emotions. Ummm... kinda? Aside from the obvious "Duh! Of course animals emote!" perspective, I read and say to myself, "yes, obviously the animals emote but your presentation of that belief in the preceeding chapters is so weak and conditioned that I don't believe what you are presenting." Now of course I really believe this, but the book text/evidence does a poor job of presenting this contention.

Next, one fascinating topic was touched on but not explored. This would be an interesting book to read, and I expect it exists somewhere. At any rate, "When Elephants Weep" does mention how human language allows us to intellectually explore emotion. Since other animals do not have the language that humanity does, how does that lack of language limit/impair/reduce/enhance/exaggerate animal emotion?

Finally, the book wraps up with a condemnation of all human exploitation/use of animals. I concede that as an omnivore, I am prejudiced to ignore the pain/suffering/ death of all the foodstuffs I consume. Since this is an industry (as well as medicine and many other products tested on animals), the book presents a very basic, easy, dark, terifying perspective of these industries. It's easy to condemn and vilify this, but look at the billions of people the world must sustain and recognize compromise should exist.

[Tracey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Masson explores "the sin of anthropomorphism" - attributing emotions (& behaviour in response to emotions) to animals, both in terms of his own observations and those of biologists and animal trainers & researchers, all the way back to Charles Darwin. He starts with a general discussion of the topic, then spends a chapter on one of about a dozen different emotional states; including fear, anger, love, joy and compassion.

He's definitely writing with an agenda; he's a vegetarian and very against animal testing and experimentation. Masson presents the standard arguments of behaviorists and uses their terminology against them at times. While a large chunk of his stories and anecdotes deal with the great ape family (including those who have been taught sign language or other communication skills); he also presents examples of elephants, foxes, dolphins and geese as exhibiting emotions and related behavior. Domestic animals work in his favor as well, since nearly anyone who has lived with dogs or cats (or other pets) is familiar with their moods and feelings.

I found his writing engaging, with the myriad of experiences woven together to provide a cogent argument. He dedicates nearly 45 pages to his Notes and Bibliography, and includes an index as well.

Recommended to animal lovers with an interest in psychology & sociology.

[Cheryl]

So much work has been done since this was written, over two decades ago, that all I can say is Yay! I don't have to resort to trying to read this. Right now I'm starting Animal Wise: The Thoughts and Emotions of Our Fellow Creatures and it promises to be more informative, and at least as important and entertaining, as I imagine this was back in the day. I also recently finished, and enjoyed, The Soul of an Octopus: A Surprising Exploration into the Wonder of Consciousness and The Minds of Birds.

[Lawrence · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am a lion hungry for a piece of meat, but I can't seem to get it across to Mr. Masson. I stood up on my hind legs and mewed and whined and begged, but no nice red meat. All of which is to say that I got to about page 55 and said to myself that this book was not worth the investment in time and energy.

The book is actually a polemic fueled by Mr. Masson's dislike about something or other in the scientific community and inflated by his speculations and rhetorical questions in the form of "If so, why should it not be that gibbons have a theory of the fourth dimension?" Mr. Masson does not follow up the questions with information. So, I'm led to conclude that there isn't any. In sum, he scolds the scientific community for not having information and then he turns the lack of information into a not small book without making a positive contribution of his own.

[Carole Gropl · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a re-read. I first read this book when it came out in 1995. I enjoyed it the second time as well. I don't agree with some of the reviewers of this book who say the author does not make his point. No, he does not scientifically prove that animals have emotions and that these emotions, rather than pure instinct, influence their behavior. I don't think he was trying to do that. I believe he was trying to get people to see animals as sentient beings who feel - and I think he succeeds at that. He is saying that even though we cannot know what an animal thinks or feels, if an animal appears to be sad (happy, affectionate, angry, shy, ashamed, afraid, etc.)who are we to say those emotions can't exist in animals?

[Peterela · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Animals are, like us, endangered species on an endangered planet, and we are the ones who are endangering them, it and ourselves."

"They are innocent sufferers in a hell of our making. We owe them, at the very least, to refrain from harming them further. If no more, we could leave them be."

[Karyn Schwitters · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book revolutionized the way I saw animals. I think it is the responsibility of every human to make themselves aware of the capacity of animals' to love, grieve, play, and ponder.

[Hafsa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Okay, this book is a somewhat hear me out.

If you pick this book up and you are an avid fan of the scientific method and strong conclusions, this book may not be for you. The author is not a scientist, but just very interested and informed on portrayals of animal behaviour.

So, bearing that in mind, this book doesn’t actually explain anything haha. Nonetheless I still really enjoyed reading it! This is the first book I have read on animal emotions & intelligence, and it’s been an enjoyable read! The book is broken into interesting chapters, and sections within those chapters. Each section contains really interesting stories of animal behaviour throughout history, this includes accounts, experiments, and observations from zoologists.

I learnt a lot about the behaviours that animals are capable of, the kindness, empathy, and interesting ways they all interact with each other.

I suppose the author has a particular agenda and perspective. He loves animals. He wants people to respect them, as we respect each other as humans. He wants to show us that animals too have complex feelings and natures, and are not simple minded in the eat, sleep, sh*t and repeat sense lol. Which I can respect, the stories in this book doesn’t actually explain highlight the complexity of animal behaviour & psychology, and to be honest, animals definitely are much more complex in ways that we may never understand.

I feel that what really sells this book, and what makes it enjoyable is the stories of the animals. They’re very interesting! But, if you want fact, this book isn’t factual. The author isn’t a scientist, they aren’t going to tell you what’s going on in their brains. It’s a collection of animal stories, emotions, philosophies, and descriptions relating to the emotion the animal MAY or MAY NOT be feeling.

I’d say this book is made for leisure rather than information. It’s a good book to read on a train, or on a rainy day, as i did find it captivating. Although, towards the end I did get a bit tired of the “the elephant does this, which may or may not signify this, we’ll never know, but who’s to say that they don’t experience this emotion”. But I still found it entertaining :) I wouldn’t suggest that anyone read this with urgency, but if you want to read for fun or pick up something a bit light hearted and easy-ish, this is a good book for that. But, I don’t think it’ll blow your mind in the way that you may assume, but you’ll leave the book knowing a few cool animal stories, and entertained :D

[Kai De La Cruz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Argues that in favor of animals having some complex emotions. I agree but man this book turned into a an essay about love and how it makes no sense from a survival standpoint. I was sitting here like “well shoot this is so true, why the heck are we so motivated to love”. Lots of crazy stories about animals going off the rails because of love or grief. This book is like the nature doc I wish existed but they never could get Morgan Freeman to voice over.

[Kara Aragon · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a vegan & animal lover, I was excited for this book as the concept sounded right up my ally.

The just of the book was lovely. It was the writing style that I didn't love & found a bit boring & difficult to push through.

Still, I appreciate any book that shows animals in their sentient light.

Favorite quote from the book;
"Answer me, you who believes that animals are only machines," he wrote. "Has nature arranged for this animal to have all the machinery of feelings only in order for it not to have any at all?"

🖤

[Ann Moody · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a book about common sense. It makes the assumption that humans can appreciate and understand things that are obvious. It assumes people generally understand the somewhat unmeasurable concepts of "right" and "wrong." Particularly it assumes that certain truths are self-evident and don't require scientific proof to remain so.

Nevertheless, one type of accepted scientific evidence is called "empirical" evidence. That means evidence based on what we can sense. Much of this is visual observation but we have other senses by which we take in valid data. It is not always exactly quantifiable or easy to describe given current limits of human language and metrics, but the evidence is there nonetheless. And many people are able to use such evidence to deduce conclusions that make sense.

Everything described in this book is obvious. Numerous examples are given that support the observations that animals feel pain, emotions, and mental anguish. This is obvious simply from empirical evidence. Anyone who has lived around animals, had pets, or visited a zoo, and who chooses to give it a little thought, can observe the same evidence and draw the same conclusions, if they choose to do so.

Animals typically are limited in their ability to use complex language that we understand to confirm this, though certain animals have been taught some human forms of language. In those cases, they provide yet further evidence that the empirical observations are accurate.

Nevertheless, it is true that our fundamental ignorance of the exact inner workings of any given animal's personal thoughts prevent us from establishing proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. Therefore some would say, this book is foolishness, poppycock, fantasy, or simply inaccurate.

The fact that something cannot be absolutely proven does not make it false. We are a long way from fully understanding all human behavior, but we can look at it right in front of us. We all know something is going on inside our own mind because we have our own empirical evidence - we experience thought through out senses so we know thought and emotions, and complex ones at that, are real phenomena in the human mind.

We can't really be sure other humans think and feel as we do, even those around us on a daily basis, but we can assume (if we decide we want to make that assumption) with relative confidence that they do. For a long time, however, humans assumed various foreign tribes and people were almost a separate beast with entirely different thoughts and emotions. People still regularly cast doubt on the fundamental humanity of entire societies. Some pathological people even believe no other human thinks as they do. They are the only real one and the rest of us are some sort of robots or empty shell people placed here to create a world for them. It's really hard for the rest of us to prove otherwise.

So this book is about common sense and intuition rather than about things that are absolutely provable. Either you like that and are fine with it and will appreciate the insights and empirical evidence provided eloquently and extensively though this book, or you will not.

It absolutely resonates with my own empirical observations of the little planet that I have shared with countless other living beings for over fifty years, and I appreciated the author's description of many truths that I have always held to be self-evident.

[Dinah · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book has a fatal flaw, which I believe is the crux of its argument and usefulness: In the discussion of whether or not animals can be said to have feelings, Masson is forced to wrestle with the definition of emotion, its origin and symptoms and causes and ontology. Is emotion mutually exclusive to evolutionary function, as one would come to believe from the tone of scientific discourse? If a mother protects her cubs, can we assume she feels love for them? Why would we possibly assume otherwise? The very concept of anthropomorphism implies that humans and animals are fundamentally different, and thereby disallows any meaningful, genuine comparison by researchers for fear of appearing soft.

The book eventually becomes repetitive and even polemical in its statements on what it means if animals do, in fact, have emotions (hint: we might be compelled to be less cruel to them, you know, universally). Relatedly, it is defined by the logical fallacy that a collection of anecdotes can constitute data. That being said, the research is compelling and the story-telling from animal observers is interesting. While I might not recommend reading this book cover to cover, it's worth a few chapters and some skimming.