14.4.10

A Little Birdie Told me


That albatross round your neck is a loyal dog, but adultery rules in the avian kingdom. Bird-watching has got a fresh connotation in an upcoming book The Bird Detective by Bridget Stutchbury.

This might not have ruffled my human feathers at all for the simple reason that the concept of institutionalising relationships is the trait of homosapiens and the world of fauna is fairly liberal, if we see this as one aspect of liberalism, and not tied down by any moralistic constraints. It is true that birds too try their best to attract the opposite sex; they too cohabit like good people of religion for mainly procreative purposes, although their faith rises when the heat in their bodies does; they like building nests, laying eggs, taking care of their young. But we also don’t expect them to be steadfast since no one is going to sit in judgment and shame them.

Therefore, I do not understand the purpose behind such a book venture and, more importantly, the findings. Take this one example:

The book shows male Acadian flycatchers fertilizing females far away from their home nests, and female blue headed vireos premeditating divorce by checking out new mates before they abandon their young.

The main discovery is that so many birds do divorce for what humans would describe as selfish reasons, Stutchbury said, noting that females may seek out males that are more colourful and better singers, or look to step up in the world and move to areas that are safer and have more food.

How can the word divorce be used here? Abandonment, yes. Multiple partners, fine. Glad eye, okay. Selfishness, true. How do birds divorce? Does the erring partner make it clear that s/he is quitting the home-nest? Is there an understanding about territory? Who gets custody of the children? Now, in this respect there are anyway fairly clear ideas regarding who does what that Discovery Channel tells us.

From the little bit that one has read, it seems the females are really on top. Some choose the rakes; others the security. And they plan their moves.

99 per cent of the flamingoes have broken marriages and the wandering albatross merely wanders and returns to the spouse.

I don’t think I will be able to look at any of the birds in the same manner. I know there is a crow that keeps staring at me while I write. He perches himself on the cable wire outside my window and looks. I blush sometimes, but all along I thought he was being a moral support. Or that parrot that occasionally sits on the kitchen window sill? Does she want a bite or does she want me to help her out of a sticky situation? There is a kite that appears rarely. Now I know why. Fidelity is not on the cards. As for the pigeon, I can hear him moaning and groaning and I get irritable or listen quietly depending on my frame of mind. Now I wonder whether he was in desperate need of counselling.

And for those whose cuisine includes fowl, have we ever thought that the bird must have been suicidal anyway after Monsieur Cock gave Madame Hen the documents to undo their ‘I do’?

I am warming up to the author’s effort. I think it should qualify as chick lit!

14 comments:

  1. FV, downright scary (in a "you can't possibly know that" way :-)) detective work on the Bird Detective. Seriously, the book appears to reinforce Richard Dawkins' ideas in "The Selfish Gene". The basic premise of that book is that one of the key functions of the Gene is to encode memory that ensures perpetuation of the individual animal/bird/human.

    "The book shows male Acadian flycatchers fertilizing females far away from their home nests, and female blue headed vireos premeditating divorce by checking out new mates before they abandon their young."

    The Selfish Gene (just an abstraction of an idea, not a real gene) theory's explanation of the above is that all species sole focus is on perpetuating their species. It is only certain evolved lifeforms that seem to have second thoughts on the whole idea of self-perpetuation.

    The theme of the female of the species and their "selfish gene" that drives their mating behaviour.

    "There's a place way down in Brentwood
    Out to Georgio's we all g'wine
    The maitre 'd's gonna take care of everything
    He's a personal friend of mine, what a prize you are!
    Honey don't you scratch my new car

    Selfish Gene, he's one in a million
    A safe harbor in every storm
    Many call but few are chosen"

    http://tinyurl.com/y39epm5

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Farzana, AI,

    >>The Selfish Gene (just an abstraction of an idea, not a real gene) theory's explanation of the above is that all species sole focus is on perpetuating their species.<<

    If this Gene were completely selfish wouldn't the perpetuation of the species come second to self-perpetuation? Here's Coleridge:

    How long in that same fit I lay,
    I have not to declare;
    But ere my living life retun'd,
    I heard and in my soul discern'd
    Two voices in the air,

    "Is it he? quoth one, "Is this the man?
    "By him who died on cross,
    "With his cruel bow he lay'd full low
    "The harmless Albatross.

    "The spirit who 'bideth by himself
    "In the land of mist and snow,
    "He lov'd the bird that lov'd the man
    "Who shot him with his bow."

    The other was a softer voice
    As soft as honey-dew.
    Quoth he, The man hath penance done,
    And penance more will do . . . .

    I'd keep a close eye on that crow, Farzana. Moral support indeed. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. mstaab:
    "If this Gene were completely selfish wouldn't the perpetuation of the species come second to self-perpetuation?"

    Hi mstaab, But "self" is part of some species :-).

    Seriously, self-perpetuation of the individuals if a species translates to perpetuation of the species.

    Humans are in a great hurry to graduate, earn enough for a bungalow and three hot meals a day and finding a mate before focussing on creating and developing tiny copies of themselves, as that is the norm of their peers in society.

    In birds, it seems to translate to a well-padded nest and bright feathers, a distinct mating call or some other genetically encoded behavioural feature to attract the opposite sex.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Al, Mstaab (welcome back!):

    Thanks for the lyrics/poem.

    Taking both your comments into account, I'd say that self-perpetuation is a grand illusion, and illusions are selfish to the extent that only you are privy to it. But there is a self-centred need to propagate the species that has to do with evolution and self-protection.

    The future is not just hot meals and strawberries and cream; it is about how we are able to expand our potency/fertility to serve us later. The more evolved species, in fact, merely rationalise their mating as socially acceptable thing; the reasons are more psychological (hormonal aside).

    The 'self' in the larger sense is beyond the being.

    Now I have no song, but I'll just crow :)

    Mstaab: I'll give the benefit of doubt to the brow...keeping an eye would mean playing along and these things can turn dangerous!

    ReplyDelete
  5. FV:"The future is not just hot meals and strawberries and cream;it is about how we are able to expand our potency/fertility to serve us later. "

    FV, my "hot meals" remark is w.r.t. people requiring security of some sort as soon as possible so that they can start a family.

    Other than existing as a species for as long as possible, there really is no larger purpose, though everyone likes to pretend there is one. And on closer examination, everybody has a different unshakeable reason for existing. Nothing wrong with that -- just another pointless observation. I pity the crow and wouldn't want to be in its place.

    Good luck and cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Al:

    Why are you reacting to the hot meal counter reference? I know you meant it as security and I think there is something beyond it in terms of the future? Since you do believe each one has their own reason for existing, perhaps a larger purpose cannot be ruled out. Besides, pretence is perceivable only if you know the reason to begin with.

    I pity the crow too for he can only stand and stare. Thanks for your commisseration, though. I am sure it will find a good shoulder to cry on. And thanks for the wishes. I need all the luck I can get.

    ReplyDelete
  7. FV,

    Missing crucial smiley in the post, but don't blame you for thinking I was being touchy. There should have been one next to my "I pity the crow" remark. :-S The "good luck" was for dealing with the nefarious crow. Now, I think I need to go scouting for some good luck..."been down for so damn long, it is starting to look like up to me".

    (This space has been left intentionally blank to avoid misunderstanding.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. FV,"Besides, pretence is perceivable only if you know the reason to begin with."

    In the case of pretending to have a reason to exist, it maybe necessary to have faith in some overarching explanation for all things in order to function in a complex and confusing world, or just have faith in oneself and accept that not everything happens for a reason. Most things just happen for no reason at all, without involving the will of any person.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for clarifying the complete oversight regarding the omission of the smiley. What a smiley world it is!

    Re. pretence and reason, I was alluding to someone else accusing another of pretence for a larger purpose of living without knowing the reason for that person's existence or existentialism. Even if it is not a willful decision, s/he may have some clue as to why they are doing what they are doing.

    It is indeed all complex, which is why we have onions.

    - - -
    Mstaab, there was a type 'brow' is 'crow' You might have figured it out but just thought I'd regain some lost feathers...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks for clarifying the complete oversight regarding the omission of the smiley. What a smiley world it is!

    Re. pretence and reason, I was alluding to someone else accusing another of pretence for a larger purpose of living without knowing the reason for that person's existence or existentialism. Even if it is not a willful decision, s/he may have some clue as to why they are doing what they are doing.

    It is indeed all complex, which is why we have onions.

    - - -
    Mstaab, there was a type 'brow' is 'crow' You might have figured it out but just thought I'd regain some lost feathers...

    ReplyDelete
  11. >>Mstaab, there was a type 'brow' is 'crow' You might have figured it out but just thought I'd regain some lost feathers...<<

    Eh? And here I was thinking you were making poetic allusion to the gospel of Matthew in the Christian bible (5:29), to wit:

    And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

    You know, "...keeping an eye," and "brow" (eye-brow?). Just kidding. ;)

    In response to AI's pretense and reason, Farzana, you wrote:

    >>I was alluding to someone else accusing another of pretence for a larger purpose of living without knowing the reason for that person's existence or existentialism. Even if it is not a willful decision, s/he may have some clue as to why they are doing what they are doing.<<

    Certainly accusing another of flat-out lying can work to obscure one's own ignorance -- either affected or genuine; either from others or from one's self -- and certainly such might work to forestall some perceived sort of "day of reckoning" (so to speak, where one's vulnerability comes to be exposed -- childbirth, for example, or even death in another sense). I'm a bit pressed, however, to come up with a situation where a decision -- any decision -- wouldn't be willful. Can you help?

    Thanks for the welcome back, Farzana. I'm assuming you meant "back" in the sense of actually contributing to the conversation as opposed to just lurking. :)

    Mark

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ah, and thine mind, cast in keyboard stone, thought nought for profit and merrily submitted to the ravages of fingers so buttery that betwixt and between the penance for error another error was made. The typo wrought another havoc true to ‘type’.

    Hello Mark:

    Certainly accusing another of flat-out lying can work to obscure one's own ignorance -- either affected or genuine; either from others or from one's self -- and certainly such might work to forestall some perceived sort of "day of reckoning" (so to speak, where one's vulnerability comes to be exposed -- childbirth, for example, or even death in another sense).

    I’d see affected ignorance as deceit. I am going beyond my response, of course, because that was specific. Does it work to forestall? Only at the level of perception and denial, unless there is active participation, in which case the vulnerability has been co-opted.

    I'm a bit pressed, however, to come up with a situation where a decision -- any decision -- wouldn't be willful. Can you help?

    I understand that the very act of making/taking a decision is wilful. That is the macro part of it. You decide to take a road. What happens on the road, the pathways, the barriers, the silences, the strange encounters, and your reaction might not be wilful. In fact, it has no choice but to be spontaneous. Ergo, you decide to be spontaneous given the motile nature of one’s situation.

    Thanks for the welcome back, Farzana. I'm assuming you meant "back" in the sense of actually contributing to the conversation as opposed to just lurking. :)

    One assumes that what one does not see is not looking! The welcome was for you and your insightful comments.

    Have a good weekend...

    ReplyDelete
  13. >>I’d see affected ignorance as deceit.<<

    Bottom-line? Sure. Yet such a deceit is not without its facility to elicit intelligence with respect to the (relative) ignorance of another. Fishing, we call it -- some being more sensitive to those sort of "probative" casts seeking to sound their depths. :)

    >>I understand that the very act of making/taking a decision is wilful. That is the macro part of it. You decide to take a road.<<

    The very idea of a "road" suggests others have preceded you on that trail . . .

    >>What happens on the road, the pathways, the barriers, the silences, the strange encounters, and your reaction might not be wilful. In fact, it has no choice but to be spontaneous. Ergo, you decide to be spontaneous given the motile nature of one’s situation.<<

    Thank you. That does help.

    >>Have a good weekend...<<

    And you, as well. :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. The probative casts would not need to go too deep if the bait is adequate. Besides, there is structural intelligence always; the problem is how it uses ignorance.


    The very idea of a "road" suggests others have preceded you on that trail . . .

    Is decision-making dependent on precedents? For the one travelling this is the road they want. Unless it is chasing the previous traveller, which would be an interesting decision.

    Happy to help, as my cellphone provider's line says :)

    Another week ahead...

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.