In this article we defend the idea that etho-ethnology and ethno-ethology should be combined into a new science at the interface between human and animal sciences. This new field would study the hybrid communities comprised of humans and animals sharing meaning, interests and affects, and would try to account for the complexity of interspecific sociabilities. The study cannot be reduced either to an ethology devoted strictly to animal behaviors or to an ethnology concerned exclusively with the life of humans in society.
French
Dans cet article, nous défendons l'idée selon laquelle étho-ethnologie et ethno-éthologie doivent se combiner en une nouvelle science à l'interface des sciences de l'homme et des sciences de l'animal. Ce nouveau champ de recherche devra étudier les communautés hybrides homme/animal de partage de sens, d'intérêts et d'affects et devra rendre compte de la complexité des sociabilités interspécifiques. Une telle étude ne peut être réduite ni à une éthologie qui se consacre exclusivement à l'étude des comportements de l'animal, ni à une ethnologie qui étudie seulement la vie des humains en société.
Arhem, K. (1996) “The Cosmic Food Web: Human–Nature Relatedness in the Northwest Amazon”, in P. Descola and G. Palsson (eds) Nature and Society. Anthropological Perspectives, pp. 185–205. London and New York: Routledge .
2.
Brunois, F. (2001) “Le jardin du Casoar, la foret des Kasua. Influences des relations au milieu forestier sur la constitution de l’identite et des savoirs et savoir-faire ecologiques de la societe kasua”, doctoral dissertation, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris (CD-ROM included).
3.
Brunois, F. (2003) “Etre arbre: la condition humaine kasua (Nouvelle-Guinee) visitee par la condition du vegetal ou vice-versa”, Cahiers de Littérature Orale 53–4: 293–304.
4.
Brunois, F. (2004) “La foret peut-elle etre plurielle? Definitions de la foret des Kasua de Nouvelle-Guinee”, Anthropologie et Sociétés 28(1): 89–107.
5.
Brunois, F. (2005a) “Comment apprendre a dialoguer avec les natures papoues: apercu de la contribution scientifique de Peter Dwyer”, Journal de la Société desánistes 120: 1–6.
6.
Brunois, F. (2005b) “Pour une approche interactive des savoirs locaux: l’ethnoethologie”, Journal de la Société des Océanistes 120: 31–41.
7.
Brunois, F. (in press) “Man or Animal: Who Copies Who? Interspecific Empathy and Imitation among the Kasua of New Guinea”, in A. Minelli , S. Ortalli and S. Sanga (eds) Animal Names, pp. 389–401. Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti .
8.
Brunois, F. (forthcoming) Le jardin du Casoar, la foret des Kasua. Ontologie, savoir et savoir-faire écologiques de la socíté kasua. Papouasie-Nouvelle-Guinée. Paris: Editions CNRS-MSH (“Chemins de l’ethnologie”).
9.
Call, J. , Brauer, J. , Kaminski, J. and Tomasello, M. (2003) “Domestic Dogs (Canis familiaris) are Sensitive to the Attentional State of Humans” , Journal of Comparative Psychology117(3): 257–263 .
10.
Descola, P. (1996) “Constructing Natures: Symbolic Ecology and Social Practice”, in P. Descola and G. Palsson (eds) Nature and Society. Anthropological Perspectives, pp. 82–103. London and New York: Routledge .
11.
Descola, P. (2001) Leçon inaugurale. Paris: College de France, Chaire d’Anthropologie de la nature, 29 March.
12.
Descola, P. and Palsson, G. , eds (1996) “Introduction”, in P. Descola and G. Palsson (eds) Nature and Society. Anthropological Perspectives, pp. 1–23. London and New York: Routledge .
13.
Despret, V. (2002) Quand le loup habitera avec l’agneau. Paris: Les Empecheurs de Penser en Rond.
14.
Despret, V. (2004) Hans, le cheval qui savait compter. Paris: Les Empecheurs de Penser en Rond.
15.
Ellen, R. and Fukui, K. , eds (1996) Redefining Nature: Ecology, Culture and Domestication. Oxford: Berg .
16.
Friedberg, B.C. (1997) “Diversite, ordre et unite du vivant dans les savoirs populaires”, Nature, Science et Société 5(1): 5–17.
17.
Gaunet, F. (2003) “Les activites assistees par les dauphins: une pratique alternative de soutien a l’interaction” , Communication & Organisation23: 51–64 .
18.
Gaunet, F. (2005) “Cognition sociale: interactions homme–chien”, in C. Beata (ed.) La communication, pp. 25-30. Marseille: Solal .
19.
Gibson, J. (1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Miffin .
20.
Hare, B. (2004) “Dogs use Humans as Tools: is it the Secret to their Success?”, in M. Beckoff (ed.) Encyclopedia of Animal Behaviour, pp. 277–285. Westport, CT: Greenwood .
21.
Hare, B. and Tomasello, M. (2005) “Human-like Social Skills in Dogs?” , Trends in Cognitive Sciences9(9): 439–444 .
22.
Hare, B. , Call, J. and Tomasello, M. (1998) “Communication of Food Location between Human and Dog (Canis familiaris)” , Evolution of Communication2: 137–159 .
23.
Hermann, H. (1998) From Biology to Sociopolitics. Conceptual Continuity in Complex Systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .
24.
Herzfeld, C. and Lestel, D. (2005) “Knot Tying in Great Apes: Etho-Ethnology of an Unusual Tool Behavior” , Social Science Information44(4): 621–653 .
25.
Hiby, E. F. , Rooney, N. J. and Bradshaw, J. W. S. (2004) “Dog Training Methods: Their Use, Effectiveness and Interaction with Behaviour and Welfare” , Animal Welfare13: 63–69 .
26.
Howell, S. (1996) “Nature in Culture or Culture in Nature? Chewong Ideas of Humans and Other Species”, in P. Descola and G. Palsson (eds) Nature and Society. Anthropological Perspectives, pp. 127–145. London and New York: Routledge .
27.
Hviding, E. (1996) “Nature, Culture, Magic, Science: On Meta-Languages for Comparison in Cultural Ecology”, in P. Descola and G. Palsson (eds) Nature and Society. Anthropological Perspectives, pp. 165–185. London and New York: Routledge .
28.
Ingold, T. (2000) The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London and New York: Routledge
29.
Kaminski, J. , Call, J. and Fischer, J. (2004) “Word Learning in a Domestic Dog: Evidence for Fast Mapping” , Science304: 1682–1683 .
30.
Krakauer, D. (2001) “Selective Imitation for a Private Sign System” , Journal of Theoretical Biology213: 145–147 .
31.
Latour, B. (1991) Nous n’avons jamais été modernes. Essai d’anthropologie symétrique. Paris: La Decouverte .
32.
Lestel, D. (1986) “Le raisonnement en milieu semantiquement riche. Le cas d’un laboratoire de biologie du comportement”, doctoral thesis, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris.
33.
Lestel, D. (1994) “Symbols of Discord: Are Apes that Talk Trivia More Interesting than Apes That Do Not Talk?” , Social Science Information33(2): 335–369 .
34.
Lestel, D. (1995) Paroles de singes. Paris: La Decouverte.
35.
Lestel, D. (1996) L’animalité: essai sur le statut de l’humain. Paris: Hatier.
36.
Lestel, D. (1998) “How Chimpanzees have Domesticated Humans: Towards an Anthropology of Human/Animal Communication” , Anthropology Today14(3): 12–15 .
37.
Lestel, D. (2001) Les origines animales de la culture. Paris: Flammarion.
38.
Lestel, D. (2004) L’animal singulier. Paris: Le Seuil .
39.
Maturana, H. and Varela, F. (1987) The Trees of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Boston, MA: Shambhala .
40.
Maturana, H. , Mpodozis, J. and Letelier, J. C. (1995) “Brain, Language and the Origin of Human Mental Functions” , Biological Research28: 15–26 .
41.
Maynard-Smith, J. and Szathmary, E. (1999) The Origins of Life. From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
42.
Miklosi, A. , Kubinyi, E. , Topal, J. , Gacsi, M. , Viranyi, Z. and Csanyi, V. (2003) “A Simple Reason for a Big Difference: Wolves Do Not Look Back at Humans, but Dogs Do” , Current Biology13: 763–766 .
43.
Miklosi, A. , Polgardi, R. , Topal, J. and Csanyi, V. (2000) “Intentional Behaviour in Dog–Human Communication: An Experimental Analysis of ‘Showing’Behaviour in the Dog”, Animal Cognition3: 159–166 .
44.
Minnegal, M. (1996) “A Necessary Unity: the Articulation of Social and Ecological Explanations of Behaviour” , Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, n.s. 2: 141–158 .
45.
Naderi, S. , Miklosi, A. , Doka, A. and Csanyi, V. (2001) “Co-operative Interactions between Blind Persons and their Dogs” , Applied Animal Behavior Science74: 59–80 .
46.
Oddendaal, J. S. J. and Lehman, S. M. C. (2000) “The Role of Phenylethylalamine during Positive Human–Dog Interaction” , Acta Veterinaria69: 183–188 .
47.
Sharp, H. (1976) “Comparative Ethnology of the Wolf and the Chipewyan”, in R.L. Hall and H.S. Sharp (eds) Wolf and Man. Evolution in Parallel, pp. 55–79. New York: Academic Press .
48.
Soproni, K. , Miklosi, A. , Topal, J. and Csanyi, V. (2001) “Comprehension of Human Communicative Signs in Pet Dogs (Canis familiaris)” , Journal of Comparative Psychology115(2): 122–126 .
49.
Tomasello, M. , Call, J. , Warren, J. , Frost, T. , Carpenter, M. and Nagell, K. (1997) “The Ontogeny of Chimpanzee Gestural Signals: A Comparison across Groups and Generations” , Evolution of Communication1: 223–253 .
50.
Topal, J. , Miklosi, A. , Csanyi, V. and Doka, A. (1998) “Attachment Behavior in Dogs (Canis familiaris): A New Application of Ainsworth‘s (1969) Strange Situation Test”, Journal of Comparative Psychology112: 219–229 .
51.
Viranyi, Z. , Topal, J. , Gacsi, M. , Miklosi, A. and Csanyi, V. (2004) “Dogs Respond Appropriately to Cues of Human's Attentional Focus” , Behavioural Processes66: 161–172 .
52.
Waser, P.M. (1982) “Primate Polyspecific Associations – Do They Occur by Chance?” , Animal Behaviour30: 1–8 .
