Each chapter contains droll stories. Macaques living on the island of St Kitts in the Caribbean with a penchant, pushed a little too far, for alcohol. Voles which everybody believed monogamous but who in the end proved to be less faithful than imagined. A Thailand elephant who, under the eyes of the cameras and tourists, painted what the observers termed a self portrait. A monkey which simulated the signs of a serious disease to trick the crows which had got into the habit of pinching its daily ration of food. Two otters, brother and sister, which, whilst the specialists were persuaded that certain mechanisms prevented individuals brought up together from being attracted to each other, ended up becoming the happy parents of a little baby otter. Chimpanzees who throw their faeces in the faces of their experimenters...

There is no lack of examples and they are read with a smile playing on the lips: Vinciane Despret handles the humour subtly. But she leans on these anecdotes not in order to dissect forms of animal behaviour, but rather those of the people who observe them. Researchers, ethologists, breeders or simple ordinary individuals. How do we behave in the presence of these ‘companion species’? What role do they have in the laboratories? What are the scientists expecting from them? How does our perspective influence the way certain situations are perceived.

‘Staying with the trouble’

In the chapter devoted to the letter ‘V’, for ‘Versions’ (Do chimpanzees die in the same way as we do?), the philosopher takes an interest in an article published by the American journal National Geographic, which gives an account of the reactions of chimpanzees on seeing the body of an aged and particularly well liked female in a Cameroon community. The monkeys are said to have remained speechless and motionless, which is extremely unusual behaviour for these animals, who are generally bursting with energy. The comments flooded onto the internet, each person interpreting this reaction as the expression of a feeling of sadness. ‘Do animals go through mourning?’ she wonders. ‘Moreover, what is mourning? The attitude of the chimpanzees is connected to the view we Westerners have of mourning. But this notion is very different to that which other cultures might have of it, or even to what it meant to us a century ago.’

Asking questions without answering them, thus. And accepting to ‘live within contradictions. ‘Staying with the trouble,’ as the philosopher Donna Haraway has said. I didn’t want to respect the usual rules, which consist of explaining and justifying one’s position, only to  sometimes return to and revise it and unsettle the reader. Being able to state, for example: ‘animal suffering is terrible,’ then ‘I eat meat.’ Without having to explain that I eat little meat or that I do so out of obligation or that it disgusts me, etc. Without having to justify myself.’

Humour, but no irony

Between the lines one can also detect in this work a calling into question of certain ways of ‘doing science.’ A gentle, never head on questioning, rarely aimed at a particular researcher, tinged with humour or even mockery, but never with irony. ‘Because if I had been asked to carry out such or such research twenty years ago, I would doubtless have accepted,’ she concedes. ‘The humour is due to giving the appearance that I believe what the researchers are trying to make me believe.’

A position taking which is rather new for Vinciane Despret who, up until now, had instead deliberately held back from this denunciatory posture. ‘When, at the beginning of my career, I began to work on the subject of the animal question, I had the impression that it didn’t go down too well. That it wasn’t what you needed to do in philosophy to embark on a good career. As a result, I thought it was necessary to avoid taking positions subject to suspicion, contestation or disqualification. Subsequently, from a more epistemological point of view, I noted that critical denunciation was in contradiction with my pragmatic stance: it was a question of observing what scientists are doing, which is a lot more valuable, often, than what they say they are doing.’ And she cites the example of a researcher, originally a primatologist, who thinks that the monkeys have earned an unwarranted privilege in intelligence terms. Are sheep really more stupid than primates? But how have they been checked? What questions were put to them? How is it that descriptions are so stereotyped – sheep without real relational ties who are constantly fighting amongst each other? ‘This researcher noticed that the flock of sheep on which research conclusions had been reached had been bought just before the observations started and that thus the sheep did not know one another. It is natural that they didn’t have any friends and fought each other! What did she do? Write a critical article? No! She began the experiment again by buying a new flock and giving it the time to get settled in. And she got results which are a lot more interesting.’