Are Animals Cultural Beings?

Many people would answer the question of what makes us human by insisting that we are cultural beings. There is no doubt that we are. But one definition of culture is the totality of traditions acquired in a community by social learning from other individuals (Whiten, 2021), and many animal species have traditions. Can we then say that some animals are cultural beings too?

What about using a simpler definition: Culture is the long-term transfer of information from one generation to the next — but not by genes. Instead, the information comes through a behavior that is passed on through social learning, eventually becoming typical for a certain population. By this definition, humankind’s signature trait seems to be less unique than we imagined.

How do we study culture in animals? One approach is the so-called Method of Exclusion, in which scientists investigate behavioral variations across populations of one species. In a famous study, the British primatologist Andrew Whiten invited seven leading chimpanzee experts who worked in seven different study sites. They collected and compared data on the frequency of 65 potentially cultural behaviors.

They then concluded that 39 of these behaviors were socially transmitted, as they were present at some sites but not at others, despite having equivalent ecological settings. For example, the chimpanzees in Tai National Park in Ivory Coast are well-known for their nut-cracking skills. Chimpanzees in Gombe National Park in Tanzania, on the other hand, do not crack nuts, although nuts exist in their environment too (Whiten et al. 1999).

Orangutans use kiss squeaks.

Source: MPI EVAN, used with permission

Over the last 20 years, researchers have learned that many different species have local traditions that occur in some populations but not in others. Orangutans, for example, produce the so-called "kiss squeaks" which sound like kisses and are made when the apes notice a predator. But some populations kiss in the air, whereas others kiss on their hands or on branches, so that the sounds become louder and deeper.

Other traditions in the animal kingdom include the local dialects of songbirds, which are transmitted from fathers to sons. Birds also show variations between populations in the adoption of particular migration routes, nesting sites, diets, and foraging techniques (Aplin, 2019). There are even traditions in the sea, for example in the songs and the hunting techniques of humpback whales (Garland et al. 2011), but also in fish for mate preferences and daily routes over coral reefs (Laland et al. 2011). Finally, even insects like bumblebees (Alem et al. 2016) and the humble fruit fly seem to copy foraging techniques and mate choice from each other (Danchin et al., 2018).

However, when applying the Method of Exclusion, one has to be very careful. There may be other factors, such as genetic or environmental differences among populations, that could also explain the pattern of behavioral variation. For example, some of the chimpanzee techniques that Andrew Whiten and his colleagues evaluated occur in only one of the three subspecies. So it's quite possible that these behaviors also have an innate component. This would mean that one chimpanzee subspecies uses a new technique not out of cultural tradition, but because the behavior is fixed to specific genes.

Nettle eating technique in gorillas are probably innate.

Source: MPI EVAN, used with permission

In fact, there are examples of very complex foraging techniques that obviously have a genetic component. These include the nettle-eating technique of the mountain gorillas in Rwanda. To avoid getting stung by the stinging hairs, the gorillas first strip the leaves from the stem and then make small "leaf sandwiches." It has long been assumed that gorillas in Rwanda learn this technique from each other, however, biologist Claudio Tennie has shown that gorillas at a German zoo spontaneously develop the same complex nettle-eating technique. This means that this technique is not passed on through social learning, but is at least partly innate (Tennie et al. 2008).

But a genetic explanation is unlikely when two neighboring populations show different behaviors. And indeed, in neighboring communities of chimpanzees there are variations like the average length of termite- and ant-fishing tools, the variety of raw materials used to manufacture tools, nut cracking efficiency and the size of their wooden hammers (Motes-Rodrigo & Tennie 2021).

Environment Essential Reads

Physical and Mental Health Risks in an Intense Heat Climate

What Can We Do to Protect Our Brains From Heat?

Another factor that has to be excluded is of course the environment. Chimpanzees in Mahale do not fish algae, simply because in their territory algae do not exist. Similarly, it was found that chimpanzees in Gombe National Park often build their nests on the ground, but in Tai National Park they build them in trees. There is a simple explanation for this: in Tai there are many leopards, which are dangerous for sleeping chimpanzees, whereas in Gombe Park leopards are very rare.

But when we exclude all the variations that can be explained by genes or environment, we still find that animals do show cultural variations. Does that mean there is no real difference between them and us after all? Not exactly: There is a fundamental difference between human and animal culture. Only humans can build culturally on what generations before us have learned. This is called "culmulative culture." Unlike animals, we don't have to keep reinventing the wheel. This is called the "ratchet effect." Like a ratchet that can be turned forward but not back, people's cultural techniques evolve. Children can build on the knowledge that their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents have acquired (Tennie et al. 2009).

Chimpanzees and other animals, on the other hand, always remain within their behavioral repertoire. It is likely that behaviors we see today in chimpanzee cultures could be invented over and over again by individual animals themselves. In contrast, a child born today would not be able to invent a computer without the knowledge of many past generations.