THE SYMBOLIC BATTLE

The relationship between animal communication and human communication is only now beginning to be understood. Many of our insights into non-verbal communication

have come from experiments with animals. Birds will communicate with each other by song, generation after generation singing the same set of notes, the same simple or complex melody. For many years scientists believed that these notes, these bird songs were hereditary accomplishments like the language of the porpoise, the language dances of certain bees, and the 'talking' of frogs. Now, however, there is some doubt that this is completely so. Experiments seem to indicate that bird songs are learned. Scientists have raised certain birds away from any others of their own kind, and these fledglings have never been able to reproduce the species' typical songs. Indeed, the scientists who raised such birds were able to teach them a fragment of a popular song to replace the species' song. Left alone, a bird like this would never be able to mate, for bird songs are involved with the entire mating process.

Another type of animal behaviour that has long been termed instinctive is the symbolic fighting of dogs. When two male dogs meet they may react in a number of ways, but the most common is the snarling, snapping simulation of a fight to the death. The uninitiated onlooker will usually be alarmed by this behaviour and may even try to separate the seemingly angry animals. The knowing dog owner simply watches, realizing how much of the fight is symbolic.

This is not to say that the fight isn't real. It is. The two animals are competing for mastery. One will win, because he is more aggressive, perhaps stronger and with harder drives than the other. The fight is over at the point when  both dogs realize that one is the victor, though no skin has been broken. Then a curious thing happens. The vanquished dog lies down, rolls over and exposes his throat to the victor. To this surrender, the victor reacts by simply standing over the vanquished, baring his fangs and growling for a definite period of time. Then both leap away and the battle is forgotten.

A non-verbal procedure has been acted out. The vanquished says,' I concede. You are the stronger and I bare my vulnerable throat to you.' The victor says,' Indeed, I am stronger and I will snarl and show that strength, but now let's get up and romp.' It is a curious aside to note that in almost no species of higher animal does one member of the species kill another for any reason, though they might fight with each other for many reasons. Among roe bucks at mating time such semi-symbolic fights can build up to the point of actual battle, and then, curiously, the animals will attack the nearby trees instead of each other.

Certain birds, after scolding and flapping in angry prelude to battle, will settle their differences by turning furiously to nest building. Antelope may lock horns and struggle for superiority, but the fight, however furious it may be, will end not always in death but in a ritual defeat. Animals have learned the art of acting out relationships in a kind of charade that is a first cousin to body language. The controversial point about this symbolic battling behaviour of dogs and other animals is whether this conduct, this type of communication, is inherited as instincts are inherited, imprinted in the genetic pattern of the species and handed down from generation to generation, or whether it is learned anew by each animal. I mentioned that in some song birds the species' song must be learned; however, in others the songs are truly instinctive. Linnets learn their songs, while reed buntings inherit the ability to sing the characteristic species song. whether or not they are in contact with other reed buntings during their growth. We must be careful in studying any behaviour in the animal world not to generalize. What is true for one species of bird is not at all true for another. What is true for animals is not necessarily true for men. The symbolic battling of dogs is believed by many scientists to be an inherited thing, and yet I have had a dog trainer assure me that this behaviour is learned.

 ' Watch a mother dog when her cubs are scrapping. If one is triumphant and tries to carry his victory to the point of damaging the other, the mother will immediately cuff him into neutrality, teaching him to respect the defeat of his brother. No, a dog must be taught symbolic behaviour.' On the other hand there are dogs, such as the Eskimo dogs of Greenland, that seem to have a tremendous amount of difficulty learning symbolic behaviour. Niko Tinbergen, the Dutch naturalist, says these dogs possess definite territories for each pack. Young male pups constantly violate the boundaries of these territories, and as a result they are constantly punished by the older males who have set the boundaries. The pups, however, never seem to learn just where the boundaries are. That is, until they reach sexual maturity. From the time they experience their first copulation they suddenly become aware of the exact boundaries. Is this a learning process that has been reinforced over the years and now takes hold? Or is it some instinctive process that only develops with sexual maturity?