interpreted by many as a major evolutionary leap; cooking provides a short cut to
extra energy and can be thought of as a new element of human physiology, leading
to, for example, an increase in body mass, a consequent sharp decrease in sexual
dimorphism, a reduction in the size of tooth and jaw complex and gut size, and
a significant rise in brain volume.^8 Another is the formation of groups able to
function as an effective ‘giant superorganism’ which is both a culture-bearing entity
and a technical ensemble and which is able, through the specific cognitive abilities
gained, to overcome disasters like cyclones and therefore produce population
selection. One more example is microadaptation to genetic impairment, as in the
overcoming of hereditary deafness through the use of sign language, an adaptation
that proves to be common around the globe. It is true that the parallels drawn
between genetic and cultural evolution can, sometimes, in the hands of neo-
Darwinians, seem forced but they also underline the presence of the demanding
human capacity for cooperation and detection of cheating (the two being related).
This capacity, based on the ability to ‘read’ others’ intentions by constructing
‘theories’ about them, has been a (perhaps the) crucial evolutionary step, essential
to enhanced adaptation (Levinson 1995).
The second debate has been concerned with the nature of animals, addressing
the question, ‘What do the relatives know?’ (Csányi 2005). There is now a very
large corpus of work addressing animal behaviour, sufficiently large to draw a series
of conclusions about affect in other species. This work has shown that animals
have rich affective lives, though it is clear that they rarely display emotions in quite
such a transparent way as human beings, whose complicated social life demands
that its members are ‘on the same wavelength’. For example, animals show the
central role of some affects, at least across mammalian species. In particular, anger,
fear and anxiety seem to be common to all mammals, as does a degree of emotional
identification. But animals show other aspects of affects too. I will point to just
four of these. To begin with, recent research has shown just how important system-
atic hormonal change is to animal behaviour. A good example is the production
of new and unexpected kinds of affective palettes as various kinds of genetic
manipulation are achieved through selective breeding which unexpectedly alter
animals’ affective constitution, producing all kinds of unexpected and unwanted
emotional behaviour (Grandin and Johnson 2005). So-called pure breed domestic
animals are, not surprisingly, particularly susceptible because affective side-effects
are ignored in the race for other kinds of perfection. (Such side-effects are then
made worse by the lack of socialization that these kinds of animals may suffer,
as owners attempt to keep them apart from the mass). Then it has shown the sheer
variety of animal affects, even within apparently homogeneous species. For
example, consider the enormous differences between the affective make-up of
chimpanzees and bonobos (de Waal 2005). The bonobo has a vastly different
temperament from the chimpanzee. Chimpanzees are aggressive, territorial and
hierarchical whereas bonobos are gentle and empathic, not least because they use
sexuality as an utterly prosaic means of pleasure and social bonding as much as a
means of reproduction. For bonobos, sexuality is a means of – often frantic – social
contact that serves to calm tempers and pave the way for sharing. Then, animals
Turbulent passions 227