“Sheep Do Have Opinions”: Vinciane Despret For the past few years the inhabitants of a hamlet on the outskirts of the village of Ingleton in York shire, Fngland, have been witnessing a strange exercise every morning. A woman, said to have been one of the most renowned primatologists in the English-speaking world, spends her day in a field in front of her house, observing animals that she has put there, As she did during her many years of fied work in Africa studying apes, prima- tologist Thelna Rowell patiently notes all the movements and tiny events making, up the daily social life of the animals to which she is currently devoting her time, Admittedly, these animals are different from the ones she was used to spending time with: The relations are not characterized by the same inten sity, the behaviors are peculiar to the species, the ‘communication does not always pass by the same channels and the events seem to take place at another pace. But as far as their social expertise is concered, these animals are certainly on a par with apes. To put it simply, they are organized — so much so, in fact, that they warrant the title of “honorary primate” recently awarded to dolphins, hyenas and elephants, even though they have no link with apes. These “honorary primates,” whieh have become so fascinating since Thelma Rowell started questioning them, are sheep. And, owing, to the scientist's patient work, these sheep have changed considerably. The primacologist’s observations usually start carly in the morning, with the same ritual: She takes each of her 22 sheep a bow! of its breakfast. Bur what puzzles.any outside observer is that there are not 22 but 23 bowls, that is, always one too snaany. ‘Why the extra bowl? Is the researcher practic~ ing a kind of conviviality that demands she share the meal of those she is studying? No, that is not the idea. Does this “generous” strategy perhaps 360 attest to a new attitude of researchers? Might the refusal to make the animals compete be related anew type of question, itself contingent on a polit. ical awareness? Thelina Rowell affirms that the focus on competition, characteristic of ethological research studies for years, did correspond to cet tain political contexts,® but the food supply that she gives her sheep is not of this type of encoll ment. The twenty-third bowl is part of a device that, in Beuno Latour’s terms,? should give all the chanees to the sheep: ft should allow them to be more interesting. Of course this requires some: explanation, and { will revert 10 that. First, 1 Wi to take the time to reconstruct the multiple events that progressively led to the necessity for thi extra how! The fact that { bave chosen stich a trivial an concrete clement to start that reconstruction is not irelevant. It attests toa particular episte logical position to which 1am committed, ong that [call a virtue: the virtue of politeness. [try acquire this virtue during my work, in which, as cthologist, I study the work of other ethologi and it is in contact with chet that I lear it. AS matologist Shirley Strum would have put it, je stems froma comment by Thelma Rowell ine 36, 2003): "People whe teat the Jina sive farming) wal ger quite sume way aceepeing thar these animals have relationships and op annals central have opines.” 2“Thoteis realy a wery dreary period wl about anything bt competion, ali coincides wit the ‘extremely conservative povetnment i tis cout, Cer aly: Competition was absolurely everything” Interview Irae ye, 2005, Thin idea of hnking the epertoite of ques thom putt poll asec was wiv conhussstialy by some researchers and with more ree by others. Om this subject ses for examples the mines dscns between primacoloasts on the iene of the beter of thee primates, Mie Fen Pinte count Mesto Stenee, Gender ane Socers University of Chi Prev Chicge. 2066. 2 Bre ato "A Well of a Fellow Traveler” Pp. 358-582.politeness forces me, as far as possible, to avoid “constructing knowledge behind the backs of those [am studying”. In Strum’s practice. the questions she puts to baboons are always subordi- nate to “what counts for them”. This politeness of “getting to know” has proved itself sufficiently for me to propose adher- ing t0 it myself. If baboons or sheep become so teresting when their scientist subjects herself co this constraint, I can also hope to make the researcher interesting, in my study, by adopting the same demand and exploring how “what ‘counts for them” has allowed changes. Among the things that count for Rowell and that Learned, myself was how sheep could become extremely interesting, which is why they are present throughout my analysis 1 also acquired her taste for the small conerete causes that produce unex pected effects, original hypotheses, things through ‘which ~ as she often stresses ~ “differences arise, without any need to refer to grand theories, influ- ences, representations, ideology and the like. Sometimes a bowl is enough. Lowill revert to this point, At this stage we just eed to bear in mind that this extra howl gives a hance to the sheep = put that way, no one would doubt it— and co che researcher observing chem, Of all animals, sheep are precisely those that ‘until now have been given the fewest chance “They have been the victims of what Rowell calls “a hicrarchical scandal” in ethology: “We have given amates multiple chances: we know just about nothing about the others.” Of course we know “things about them, but clearly those things are not ‘comparable to what we know about apes. The “more research advances, the more interesting the “questions about apes become and the more these animals turn out t0 be endowed with claborate cial and cognitive competencies. By contrast, ons about che others still primarily concer t they eat, The reasons for these differences in questions multiple. First, “The way we study primates is ther different from the way classical ethology carted out, with long-term research, individ- ILbased studies looking for relationships, look- for ways of communication.” In other words, rimatology has gradually adapted the methods ‘and questions of anthropology. Classical ethol- ogy, on the other hand, focuses mainly on rek- tions with and around food: who eats what, how animals organize themselves around resources, and so forth. These methodological differences are linked to various issues primarily related to the animals themselves, to the different questions about them, to problems of practice and terrain and the like. Primates, considered to be our close relatives or even the ancestors of human beings, have mobilized their rescarchers around social questions. From the point of view of field work, haboons, macaques and chimpanzees present a certain advantage: “They ave interesting because they are always doing something, chey are always interacting; they are doing it noisily and overtly, and it is easy to watch, it's fun to wateh them.”® Nor only are they fun t0 watch, but the collection oof data required for research that is more than sim- ply a set of anecdotes, varies considerably, From the point of view of the possibility of publishing results and arousing the interest of colleagues, this, ainly makes a dilference. Classical ethology’s focus on problems related to food resources can be explained in much che same way. Rowell says, “The problem is that you can watch an animal eating very easily. The whole business of food and che competition for tod has been much exaggerated becanse that is what is 6 Teould, following Bruno Lxour, and by translorming i Slightly, apply a ertique of Thelma Rowell an the notion of standpeint”: “Ifa philosopher studies primatologist srualyig shevp and sticks to her, she willed up stayin sheep because the prinatoloyist sdving sep is very mnuel interested in sheep!” What Larour draw our atten om to isnot “we aved to gee eal oF this worn of sued: point”: On the cateary, we need ta seek a ay in whiel ae riginal standpoints ell intrnbuce a dfferemce dst will "For the ori ication on female scientists studying female baboons” and Lara ‘coments, ee Litont in: Steam, Fedigan, op ct. p. 386, 5 bop thar this transformation wll he keyable in comparison ‘sith the series af interviews consitusing the doctanemtary Inase tat Ihave created with Didier Deinorcy forthe exhib tion, Regarding the “reat causes" thar my resenrch and iy questions Focused on, Thelner Rowell assent dis sarang simplicicy, coms research miakes viable, Whoa Lasked her ea feminist had enced the eth she was inceresced in femses fon the hasis ofthe hyporhesis constituting «part of the debanes 1 Prnnate Encounters, she kindly roped that i yas tar mone ‘mple: What she sae did not correspond to wha she had ugh, although she conceded that lone to pay Mare artcmdion to what one f 6 Thelma Rowell,"\ Few Peculiar imate Pcp. 57°70. 7 Inerview, jue 30, 2005. 8 Interview, une 29, 2005. fit cea from he samo dy refering ane to thar which been mipathy ean cause ieclowe to, a: Serums, Fe Deepret (MBI “Shee D0 Have Opinions”etsiest to see, whereas the actual important thing is whether you get eaten yourself. What is much more important to the animals is much rarer, and itis predation.” Rowell adds: “And itis underesti mated because nobody sees it! And you don’t see ly because you are there. [eis a self-fulfilling thing. When we are with them, we form some sort of protection ~ and having seen that, they are will ing to exploit it, and that is called habituation.” Reverting to the hierarchical scandal, we could say that sheep, even more than the others. have been victims of questions of litle relevance compared to their ability 10 organize th ly. First, the focus on the question of what they eat is particularly exclusive and intense in that i corre- sponds to what we expect from sheep: that they conyert plants into mutton. Second, the lack of inte st in the issue of pre ble to translate behaviors that are meaningful in relation to it. From the point of view of predation, ation makes it impossi- sheep-like behavior, which in our political ns tobe emblematic of their stupid ity, could be the foundation of the intelligence of metaphors sec most sheep's social behavior: a strategy of coordi nd cohesion that protects them from predators. The closer and more attentive the ani- nals remain to one another's movements, the sooner the enemy will be detected. Finally, the very organization of breedit a leaves little chance 362 for the emergence of the kind of social behaviors found among primates. We know very little about the males. for example, since few of th more than three months, Moreover, nothing is known about the way in whieh females choose them during the mating season and how relations em live for organize that choice, since selection is entirely controlled by humans. tn fact, breeders’ selection will favor “the most sheepish sheep": “You do occasionally have a farms would simply select (th. because that’s the sheep who finds the gap in the fence.” sheep that is inventive, A lovof one for slaugicet| Sheep have an additional difficulty compared to most other farm animals: “They cannot really itha chan effectively prowst. A cow, you have to tre little more respect, because they are t you are. With sheep, you can de what you like they don’t make any obvious protest, they just get iniserable.” blue monkexs thar she observed wt Alea ane the prey ofthe ‘eagles constaney pling over the ves a which they live She notes that for eagles overbead looking down atthe twces, the sight of man faces behund bynocars teed towords the skys ennnigh ro disse thems an! to conv thein ta sek their prey elsewhere. Hans Kummyce reas simile aecttmnts: Hamxlryas habsonts tht he ws obs tg ul Learn tse bis protection agit thea preb encounter ching tir wanderingsAs the etymology of the word reminds us, 10 protest means above all to testify. And that is pre- isely where sheep’s problem lies: they have never ‘wen able to testify to what interests them since shatever it is that might interest them has heen offered no affordance, no possibility of articula ion with what interests those who attest on the! behalf, Until now they have had no reliable spokesperson.? Admittedly, the notion of a ‘spokesperson such as Larour proposes it always, ies a doubt, The question “Who is speaking?” js replaced hy another that renders the answer “0 one can speak for himself any- Snore; all the actors are maude to speak. The idea is co make an in nd to assess the multi- is always a matter of doubt, inscribed in con troversies, was apparent when Thelma Rowell orted on the particular status of predation in ch: “Do you want to know what is impor nts rarer; and if that presence were not per- ceived by those same predators, your animals ould nor lec you get close enough to observe ase Your proposition is articu- to their interests that your research affords, the opportunity to say things abour them. does not, however, mean that you are con- wed systernacically tor missing what is impor for them. There is another way of translating situation, if we bear in mind the fact that the earcher, like Thelma Rowell, actively takes into ideration the implications of her presence. A competency is added to the repertoire of all behaviors through which animals organize myelves around predation: the one that allows emi to curoll their researcher as an ally against predator, Scientists may have limited their ves (0 the repertoire of these competencies, but yy have simultaneously enlarged this repertoire ‘The advancage of this way of explaining the work needed to construct a testimony is threefold: itis relativistic, in the strict sense of the term, because it forces one to multiply the conditions that the emtire device will articulate. ‘To mention only those noted until now by Thelma Rowell (we can start with the main causes, since these would never be possible without the others): a political context that favors hypotheses in terms of compe- tition (this problem itself is made visible only because researchers have focused on food-related. behaviors although these behaviors were easier to observe only because the researchers present offered some security to those whom they were observing). To chis can be added practical prob: Jems in the field that make certain observations easicr and more fun; the criteria of publications and systems of awarding research grants that favor certain more active and extroverted animals; ani mals that take the presence of their researcher tively into account: original strategies that widen the repertoire of animals, and so forth. Second, this way of reporting enables one to give up transpareney for visibility; what makes certain things visible will at the same time exelude others and create new ones. Thelma Rowell’ defi- nition of habituation clearly illustrates this, which, means that the former division between experi- mental and “naturalist” research studies is no Jonger valid, They are all experiments on condi- tionsand propositions This brings us to the third advantage of this ‘way of reporting on researehers’ work: [eis ot rel- ativistie, bur this time in the ironic sense of the word, the “all things being equal” that precludes ny form of evaluation, Interesting research is research on the conditions that make something, nterescing. As svon as one focuses on the conkli- tions, the question of knowing “who” hecomes interesting is superflaous. OF interest is he or she who makes someone or something else capable of hecoming interesting. In the case of animals, you n study a fair part of the history of primatology with interesting, original questions that mobilize more and more activities among primates ~ who, in turn, make their researchers say more things. This is the process that participated substan- tially in che creation of the hicrarchieat scandal denounced by Thelma Rowell, She concluded thar i we really want to compare primates to sheep, we will need to lear 10 ask questions allowing com- 1.2 On this subject. ee the notion of aypokesperson ana ‘adiable witness" in Bane Latour, Pais of Nature: Howe te Brig tye Seemed Deracesey, Hee University Press, Cambrulge, MA, 2004 13 Interview, June 29, 2003. “Sheep Do Have Opinions” Despret.parison on both sides, The first question to ask sheep would be whether, like primates, they are capable of forming long-term relationships. Certain research studies have already consid- ered this question and have answered it in the neg- ative. But on closcr examination we immediately sce that their conditions made it very unlikely that sheep could have proven to have sophisticated social behaviors. First, most of the research was carried out on groups formed for the experiment, consisting of animals that had been bought for that purpose and had never met before. Only a le could have allowed lasting honds to be established. Many studies have monopolized their research question by taking hierarchy as their criterion of social organization. As in Valerius Geist’s work on the Rocky Mountain sheep. this results in a rela- tively simple description of behaviors in which hierarchy is the only organizational principle. The dominant male leads the flock, followed by the other males and then the females. Relations hetween individuals are determined hy the size of their homs, itself determined by age and sex. [ndi- vidual recognition is not necessary inthis system. As Rowell notes, t sent of the first descriptions of primates’ organizations. Behav- iors are gencrally Timited to conflicrs between males. In short, these sheep do what can be expected of sheep (they follow one another around in a highly predictable way) and what can be expected of animals corresponding to theories of hicrarchy (they obtain the right to push their way around wich their homs, che males in front and the femates behind). As Rowell points out, these sheep do certainly behave in this way ... for one month per year, dur- ing the mating season, and that is precisely the time that Gist chose because itis when sheep are the most active, However, if we observe them in the remaining 11 months of the year, what he deseribes as constituting sheep’s usual behavior proves to be totally different. Itis the oldest fentale who leads the flock, while males and females have social systems that differ and are relatively inde- pendent of each other. Alistair B. Lawrence wanted to explore the possibility of females maintaining bonds after the weaning period. Here again, the researcher's mi is remin 364 answer negative and was generalized to all sheep.2® The findings of Rowell’s research studies on the Texan Barbado show the opposite: Long- lasting relations between mothers and daughters were so obvious that she wanted to find out in which situations these relations were 20 main- tained. She discovered that this was usually the case when the daughters had their own lambs. Rowell thus inverted the question: Instead of, “Are ewes capable of maintaining bonds with their daughters?” she asked, “In which particular eit cumstances do they not do so?” The inversion of the question not only marks a change of objects the very statis and function of the question itself changes. Seeking the conditions that cause certain events not to happen is gener ally part of the results, of what is elucidated through correlations and contrasts: “Our results show that such-and-such a variable determines such-and-such an event, and its absence leads to: its disappearance.” In Rowell’s work this question rises from a downstream position to an upstream one, loses its statis as a variable and becomes: condition: “In which conditions are we most likely to be able to make visible thar which hitherto could not exist?" What are the conditions that sheep require to expand their tepertoine of behan iors? How are we going 10 afford them the oppoes tunity to give us the chance to talk differently about them? Is it these conditions that caused a colleague to fail to make visible what we allow to exist? We need to ask the question that fully allo the comparison: “Can they do what monkeys do in the way of social behavior?” The mother daughter relationship is (60 obvious (or too «: Rowell says) to carry enough weight. It is males that need to be studied. How, in an ethogram, can we learn co ident preferential bonds? The first criterion appears observation: The males are constantly regulati distances between one another. Can this reguhr tion make preferences and stable affinities lepibh ‘rst, not any sheep will do. Those i Lawrence's study, for example, are unlikely ¢o te tify or may testify in a way that is illegible for 14 Thelms Rowell, GA. Kewell “The Social Organization of Feral Ovis aries Ras Grovps i the Pre-eut Peniod,” in Eaboloes 9. 19350 215-332 15 Thelma Rowell, “Till Death Us Do Part: Long-lasting’ between Faves and Thee Daulghters,” in: Aantal Beet 44,1991 pp. 68aoaaverThey are Scottish Blackface hill ewes, whose organization makes links less visible. Their habits have been forged by a particular context: no pred anor and rare, widely dispersed resources. Conse- quently, the regulation of distance is not a prob- lem for thems they tend rather to remain at a distance from one another by practicing little coordination in the fornt of following behaviors. They would therefore have trouble answering the two questions that initiate the research and on which the ethogram is based: How does the regu- lation of distance make bonds legible, and how docs the troop organize coordinated movement? Paradoxically, the less sheepish sheep are not ood witnesses. The theory of hierarchy, which stems from classical ethology and has constituted the paradig- matic hase of many research studies,!® seems to be a condition that may offer some visibility of eex- tain phenomena, such as leadership” but dees nor enable us to account for sophisticated social behaviors. A single organizing principle is both nd too little, for it could account for everything and thus bar the way to other hypothe- ses. This model leaves sheep few chanves: Here they are more sheepish than ever, not only eter nally compelled to follow the others, hut also eter nally compelled to follow rigid rules determined by the size of horns. The idea of a group of indi- viduals determined by a strictly hierarchical organ- ization leaves litle room for flexibility and sophi tication. Two sheep fighting with their homs is a matter of hierarchy; a sheep that guides is the sign ‘ofits place in the hierarchy. A similar organization to the one called hierarchy was observed among, the females, where itis always the oldest one who. gives the signal co set off and the others follow. However, the notion of hierarchy, as generally understood to hi on of federating the group, disregards the way in which this organiza- tion is implemented among ewes —as it does in the ease of chimpanzees, for whom Margaret Power®® has suggested replacing the term “dominant” by “charismatic leader”. There is no coercion. The way in which males organize themselves has proved to be tar more unpredictable. Making it visible requires constant attention to repetitions. Only after a long time does the researcher notice that every time the flock is about 10 move, one of, too much. wave the func 366 the males makes a gesture that is almost impercep= tible to humans, consisting of lifting its head slightly and pointing its muzzle in a particular direction. Sometimes the group starts walking, sometimes not until another male produces a sim- ilar gesture and possibly leads the geoup in the indicated direction. Tfwe exelude an explanation in cerns of hieeat= chy, for the males, or limit it co a few behaviors, many things start to take on visibility that hly original. Without hierar chy, animals (like researchers) are much freet, more inventive and more sophisticated; they are no longer constrained by repetition, and their sce centists (thus liberated as well} can be mobilized by other problems. And in reality, sheep are actually mobilized by other problems and can be mobil to the extent that the “other” problems will inter: feee with the behaviors that emerge when # question of domination of space arises. When this question emerges, during the perio just before mating, everything that happened dur. only new but also to happen afterwards will give the conflicts a ticular form. A sheep does not fight with a fren has been created, ‘The months spent next to 0 another in the field ~ sometimes with one sheep's hhead resting on a companion’s back, and ever strategies used to prevent that friend from movi not be forgotten. A particular gesture attracted Rowell’s attention: During a fight. some st stop and rub their checks, forehead or ho: together. Geist interpreted these as gestures 0 dominance-submission. Rowell adds that this coherent from a classical ethology point of view since these gestares are far more frequent dur fights and are sequentially associated with a sive behavior. But, she s ‘Waal’s chimpanzees"? have taught us somethi The closest behavior. in time, vo an aggress 26 See Dona Haraway, Pate Visions. Gnnder, Rated atu the Ward of Mtn Sexe, Verso, Lema New York, 1992 27 Geos however, “piched a his importance of kasi ‘eho pos favo thats importa meres je 2.8 Margaret Rawr, le Filan une and Cine pense: am anthnopelegied wi of exci Iris University Prns, Cambie 19 19 Frans de Waal, De reconciles primates, as Marianne Kohert, Ha nari Pars. 1992,chavior is not necessarily also aggressive. On the ontrary, it may be a move of reconciliation, espe- ly since these friendly behaviors increase as the mating season approaches and the tension nts. More interestingly, Rowell notes some- thar does not seem to have been observed ctamong monkeys: “pre-conciliation” mancu- Before fighting, sheep ub their heads and cs together. “Ie is almost as if they have very -¢ not friends during the rut, but I gor yc impression that itis very important to hold the together, and it is a way to say ‘Tye got to you, but it doesn’t really mean T don’t like es The fights themselves could have another lanation that completes rather than contra- cdores scems to challenge the idea that the le purpose of the fights is to threate sinterpret the fact that every young male a few ons old proposes to an old adult at least twi as himself to knock their horns together? old male can ignore him or agree, in which he lowers his head and presents his horns. young male charges full-force and, pre- ly, finds himself propelled a few yards back- ls. Can this really be considered as an aded threat or a conflict over dominance? It gems highly unlikely. Moreover, Rowell tells us pa the females are keenly interested in fights and attracted by the loud noise caused by horns shing together. How could you make a noise if, rinstance, you had only one hand to clap with? could a single sheep make such an intense 2 By contrast, ifthere are two of you, you ean kea huge, spectacular noise, This indicates that fights are not, or nor only, conflicts of oppo- Tk seems that they are a sort of sound and display intended to ensure the group's cohe- re How can ng to this etholowist, many fights are ritu- imended to curb or channel interspecies ssion, as evidenced by the fact that they resule in death (at least among chose that been observed). In my opinion that is not the issue. The question here is which of these two hypotheses is the most interesting: that of an animal strictly determined by its hormones and by hierarchical rules, fighting blindly for problems of competition, or that of an anintal articulating its body to other bodies, in a spint of both competition and coordination to invent a solution to several problems? This is cer- tainly a political choice but not political in the sense that we prefer cooperative sheep to compet- itive ones because morally that is more acceptable. Ici political in the sense of posing the problem of the collective that we form: Do we prefer Ii with predictable sheep or with sheep thac surprise us and that add other definitions to what “being social” means? All Rowell’s work attests to this. The idea is not to denounce the hierarchical sean- dal simply for the pleasure of revealing method ological biases. It is to expand the collective to those likely to be of interest. [think coopenition is much more interesting. And this is the thing that rakes the social living animals different and inter- esting, which we all agree that they are. Making more interesting, finding devices that give a chance: Here we are, back to the notions that we started with, and to the question of the twenty-third bow! offered to 22 sheep. Generally speaking, the method itself, of attracting the sheep with food, is similar to provisioning, practice. It makes it possible, in certain circumstances, to approach the animals and thus to observe behav- iors that would otherwise be less visible because the animals would not allow the researcher t0 get close to them, Today these methods are eriticized because most of them accentuate competition among animals, which are often not provided with enough resources compared to their numbers. Consequently, that which was desipned to make visible not only restricts the repertoire of animals observed but also considerably disrupts the way’ in which they organize themselves.2? The twenty-third bow! is meaningful in relation, to this problem. It is intended not only t avoid disrupting relations but also, ahove all, to expand 20 Interview, June 29,2003. 21 See. for eximple, Rowell exiticism of Washi and De ‘ore who, to fil habuons, threw peanars to then, They thus ge that lasted far decades, of dominant Joutish males pushing abone the females and systematically ‘oceupying the center of the grenip (where the sail peanuts rally fall). See "A Few Pecubar Primates,” mz Stim, Feaigas. op. cit Deepret mm “cheep Do Have Opinions®the repertoire of hypotheses and questions pro- posed to the sheep. The idea is nor to prevent them from entering into competition around the supply of foods it is to leave them the choive of doing so, to ensure that competition is nor the only possible response te a consteaint but rather a choice in response to a proposition. If the sheep choose competition, the hypotheses of scarcity of a resource can no longer account for their behavior. Iris then necessary to conceive of other, more complicated explanations and to ask the sheep other questions on their social behavior. Thus, if a sheop leaves its bowl, shoves away its neighbor to take its place and immediately returns oiits howl, or persists and follows the other one to oust it once again, a large number of hypotheses be formulated ~ except the least interesting and most predictable one, the one that bars the sway to all the others: competition over food, To be sure, there is competition, bur expanding the repertoire of possible motives allows far more sophisticated explanations. Did this sheep simply vwant 10 show its fellow creature, and all the oth- es, that it could supplant it? If so, we have a hypothesis chat shows us that sheep ~ like pri mates, Bernd Heinrich's ravens?3 and Zahavi's, babblers*¢ — have a highly complicated concep 368 tion of hierarchy, in no way compatable (o a rigid organization that determines behaviors. pre= dictably. fn this perspective, supplanting is a way of negotiating and claiming, a status (or prestige, depending on che author) that is far more effective: and reliable than conflict. If you enter into conilict with someone else, it means that the other person is not in favor of your claim. By conteast, if they. leave when you arrive, it means thar they have accepted it, Ieis no coincidence that this twenty-third bow! enables me to group together ravens, babblers and primates, Bemd Heinrich, Amotz Zahavi and pri matologists, under the sign of a common intelli gence. All have experienced ~ some more recent ~ interesting evolutions that enabled them break away from their position in the hierarchy, ours this time. All, to some degree, attest to what the political role of ethology ean be: "Making things public” is nor only making them known, it is also exploring conditions for new ways organizing ourselves. The role of this ethology legible in this emblematic twenty-third bow: Itis responsible for inventing, with the generosity intelligence, polite ways of entering into relat ships with non-humans. “ean the Fei by 1 Carey: Libbwe 22 Thisprobleny as ised msinly for Gombe chimpanaces, According to Margaret Power, op. cit, the eomplere de oration of the pack observed by Goods sequence ofthe sress of competition social upheas to increasingly patholagieal behaviors ano pavers, goings fr asthe sadly lowed by cannibals inthe 19708 (ane Goodall “a ‘community Inceraccions i the Chimparuee Populaion the Gene National Park,” in: The Great Apes, David Homburg, Hlizabees R, McCown (eds), B. Canimings York, 1979, pp. 5). 23 Bemd Mensch, Races it Winter, Vintage Books, New ‘York, 1991; Berd Heimtich, Mond of she Raven, Hamper Gollins, New York, 2000. 24 Babblers are bins that have considerably chang ou ions ofthe species since Israe oumithologist Zahavt observed them. Amor Zahuvi, Asshag Zahavi, He ‘ap Principe: a Missing rece of Damezn’sPuzele, Oxtont University Pres, Oxford, 1997. See aso Vinciane D Nuisance dene theore éebologigne. aa danse di cre ile, Les Erypéccurs de poser en rond, Pais, 196. ‘caused by the food pausision wehnigie the chim