Uniqueness and Conditioned Responses
The first qualification in Burke's definition of a human--that is "the symbol-using animal"--reminds me of linguistics, in which human language in set apart from other forms of animal communication by two distinct features: "creativity and freedom from external stimuli" (the features are quoted from Victor Raskin). Creativity means that, unlike other animals, we can shape unique messages. The second feature calls to mind Behaviorist studies where an animal is conditioned to respond in a certain way to a given stimulus.
Other animals use signals to communicate with each other. A white-tailed deer alarmed by a perceived threat will give a snort and raise its tail to expose the white underside. As it goes bouncing into the undergrowth, these signs tell those nearby that they might also be wise to seek cover. A ruffed grouse signals its location by hopping on a well-protected log and rapidly flapping its wings to produce a sound that is much like a heart beat. With this, it hopes to attract mates. A dog rolls over on its back or places its head under another's chin to show submission. In a broad sense, all of these are symbols. Yet what sets this form of communication apart from human language is that animals other than humans do not choose from amongst an infinite number of responses and symbols when formulating a message.
We may be conditioned to say "I'm okay" when somebody asks how we're doing, but it is not our only choice. We can choose to even ignore the question and the questioner, sending a very clear signal through the symbolic use of silence.
A human has a choice in which symbols to use as well as how to interpret and use symbols.
I apply this to Burke's assertion that "And above all, we would want to emphasize: Whereas many other animals seem sensitive in a rudimentary way to the motivating force of symbols, they seem to lack the 'second-level' aspect of symbolicity that is characteristically human, the 'reflexive' capacity to develop highly complex symbol systems about symbol systems, the apttern of which is indicated in Aristotle's definition of God as 'thought of thought,' or in Hegel's dialectics of 'self-consciousness'" (LASA 24). The linguistic perspective at least adds another way of understanding the difference.
Action vs. Motion
Got to thinking...this is an example of action vs. motion. The human language is set apart from animal communication in that it is seen as an action, whereas animal communication is seen as merely motion--a conditioned response that the animal does not chose to do or not do.
I'm glad you brought up the
I'm glad you brought up the action vs. motion distinction because I was thinking the same thing as you wrote, particularly as you described the white-tailed deers snorting and running away and other animals response to this. Though the other animals respond to the deer it is by instinct rather than the deer's communication. Does the deer have an audience? I know I'm complicating things here, but is the presence of an audience another distinction between animal and man? Dogs have an audience when they bark at their owners...I'm rambling now, but who is the deer's audience?
When a deer perceives a
When a deer perceives a threat, it sometimes stomps its front foot to see if it can elicit a reaction from the intruder. It tests the waters to see if the perceived threat will run, stand still (if it is actually just a bush), or advance. The audience would be whatever the threat is perceived to be--even if that thing is an inanimate bush that just happened to rustle menacingly.
When the deer snorts and waves its tail, its audience becomes anything that also could be threatened by what it has decided is really dangerous. It isn't forming its message to suit any particular audience, just sort of sending up a general announcement that it feels threatened and it might be wise to evacuate the area. I don't know if it matters whether there are other deer in the area. Often, if one leaves, you suddenly see an eruption of tails going bounding out of sight--even though you didn't know that there were so many others present. The message comes preprogrammed to send a certain signal. It doesn't need to be tailored to a given audience because that audience of other deer inherently knows what a given signal means. With humans, signals are relative to experience and culture. Even something so simple as eye contact can mean different things to different people.
I would argue that the
I would argue that the deer's audience is other deer, and, more specifically, blood relatives. Maybe I've been conditioned by years of BBC nature films (to which I am hopelessly addicted) that interpret everything in terms of evolutionary theory. According to David Attenborough (with whom I am deeply in love) everything in nature is motivated by the (unconscious? instinctive?) "desire" for each animal attempts to protect its genetic line. Nothing happens by coincidence.
I think this interpretation of nature might be derived from the British romantic literary tradition. This tradition cherishes the notion that nothing in poetry happens by accident; each effect or action happens by virtue of the writer's autonomous choice. In nature, this autonomous choice is reinterpreted as a deliberate (though in this case, not conscious) evolutionary stragy motivated by an understandable force. What's interesting to me is the idea of "audience" in nature. Probably, the deer is not thinking to himself "I think I hear a sound...I'll flash my tail at my young and other close relatives so that our genetic line is protected." Truth be told, the deer will flash his tail if no one is around, or even if there are other species around with whom he is competing. But because we don't have "intention" in our human sense of it, does that reduce the raised tail's symbolicity for any audience that happens to be present? Granted, it is a very simple kind of symbolicity and not one that can be used in any complex rhetorical sense...still, I get uncomfortable when human beings try to distance themselves from other species by attempting to categorize our special "talents."
Your discussion of the
Your discussion of the symbolic here reminded me of Burke's metaphor of the educated trout. Is he getting at the same point here? In terms of audience, do you think we could say that animals operate collectivistically? They send messages for the greater good/protection of their herd or family? If this is the case, then they too have an audience. I am wondering now too about Elephants.
I think it is very much like
I think it is very much like the educated trout.