Can an Insect Speak the Case of the Honeybee Dance Language

7/28/2019 Can an Insect Speak the Case of the Honeybee Dance Language

1/38

Can an Insect Speak? The Case of the Honeybee Dance LanguageAuthor(s): Eileen CristReviewed work(s):Source: Social Studies of Science, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Feb., 2004), pp. 7-43Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3182953 .

Accessed: 16/01/2013 14:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Studies of

Science.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:18:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltdhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3182953?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3182953?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd


2/38

S ssABSTRACT Inthis paper I investigatethe scientific nderstandingofthe honeybee dance language. I elucidate the implicit nd explicitreasons whythehoneybees' communication systemhas been referred o as a 'language', and examinethe ways thisdesignation has entangled the themes of animal mind and human-animal continuity. end withan investigationof a scientific ontroversy urroundingthe honeybee dance language. I argue that thiscontroversywas a battle overassumptions regarding nsectcapacities, and a willingnessor unwillingness oabandon those assumptions inthe face of a phenomenon that underminedthem.Keywords animal mind, form of life, honeybee, human-animal continuity, anguage

Can an Insect Speak?The Case ofthe Honeybee Dance LanguageEileen Crist

Bees notonly ell heiromrades, ymeans fa peculiarort fdance,that hey avefound feeding lace,butthey lso ndicatetsdirectionanddistance, hus nabling eginnersofly o itdirectly.his kind fmessage s no differentn principleromnformationonveyed y ahuman eing.n the atter ase we would ertainlyegarduchbehavioras a conscious ndintentionalct and canhardlymagine owanyonecouldproven a court f aw that thadtaken lace unconsciouslyNor s thereny roof hat ees areunconscious.Jung,973:94)The honeybee' dance language s considered he most complex sym-bolic system ecoded, to date, in the animalworld.According o etholo-gistsKarlvon Frisch and MartinLindauer, the anguageof thebees is ona higher evelthan themeans ofcommunication mong birdsand mam-

malswith heexception fman' (1996 [1956]: 540). Almost50 years ater,behavioral cientist amesGould affirmshat he dance language s secondonlyto human anguage n itsability o communicate nformation'2002:41). The honeybee dance has been called 'one of the seven wondersofanimal behavior' and is considered among the greatestdiscoveriesof behavioral science (Gould & Gould, 1995 [1988]: 69). Von Frischreferred o the language of honeybees as 'one of the most remarkablemysteriesf their omplex social organization' 1950: 75). He was awar-ded the Nobel Prizein 1973 in largepartfor hisdiscovery.2Narratingto a layperson how honeybeesshare information boutresourcesfor hehive provokes mazement. here is a counterpart o this

Social Studies fScience 4/1(February 004) 7-43? SSS and SAGE Publications London,Thousand Oaks CA, New Delhi)ISSN 0306-3127 DOI: 10.1177/0306312704040611www.sagepublications.com

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/38

8 Social Studies of Science 34/1reaction n thescientificiterature: eyondextending nd refining nowl-edge about when the bees dance, how the dance encodes information,what resourcesare danced about, and the like, there has been a deepperplexitybout how to understand t. Inevitably,the language of thehoneybees'raises abstrusequestions thatbehavioral cientists ave oftensought o sidestep:whetherman is the only pecies with anguage;whether'language' can be definedn a way that llows for he possibility hatnon-human animalsmay possess it; theplausibility f the distinction etween'intentional ction' and 'non-intentional ehavior' to demarcatehumanand animal ife;thevalidity f regardingnvertebratess 'lowerforms flife'; nd the nature fcognition nd awarenessntheanimalworld.Thesetopics come under the rubricsof human-animalcontinuity nd animalmind.

In thepresent aper, investigate owhuman-animal ontinuityndanimalmind have been engaged and implicated n the scientific nder-standing fthe dance language. do so byfocusing n howscientists avedescribedand interpretedhedance as a natural anguage,and thewaysthesedescriptionsnd interpretationsave been problematized gainstabackground fprevious xpectations expectations hatdidnot nclude ninsectwith anguage.First, elucidatethe standards nvoked n the scientificiteratureosupport hesustainedreference o the dance as language. show that heuse oftheconcept language' s neither acetiousnormerely onventional.On the basis of criteriantuitivelynd deliberately bstracted, cientistshave representedhe honeybee dance as a bona fide inguistic ystem.discusshow the dance is understood s rule-governed;oth structurallystable and contextually lexible; ymbolic n representingtates of affairsdistant n space and time; and performative, hetherdescribed as an-nouncement, rder,report, nd so on, or translated ntoutterances hatannounce,order, eport, nd the ike.I thenturn o the deeper questions vokedby the surprisingiscoverythathoneybeesuse symbols. he employmentf the dance as a symboliccode has foregrounded uestions about cognitionand awareness,andenabled the use of mentalconcepts (like remembering,nterpreting,runderstanding)n thescientificiterature o describewhatthehoneybeesare doing.The implication fmindhas both made the dance languageproblematicwithinbehavioral cience, and contributed o strengtheningthe case that mentalcapacitiesmaybe moregenerously istributed hanwe are inclined, r inculcated, o believe Wenner&Wells, 1990; Griffin,2001 [1992]; Gould, 2002).The plausibilityf attributinganguageto an insectwas called intoquestion, nd a scientificontroversyruptedbetween hemid-1960sandmid- 970s. I discussthis ontroversynthe astpartofthepaper.For mostscientists n the honeybeebehavioralcommunity he controversy asclosed in favor f theefficacyf the dance's symbolismo guidebees toresources.But those who contested he dance language' remainedada-mant in theirposition. argue thatthe controversy as not about the



4/38

Crist: Can an insect speak? 9FIGURE1The Round and Waggle Dance

Source: Reprinted y permission f thepublisher romThe Wisdom ftheHive: The SocialPhysiologyf Honey Bee Coloniesby Thomas D. Seeley, p. 37. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity ress, Copyright 1995 bythe President nd Fellows ofHarvardCollege.

adequacy of empirical videnceforthe dance - which turnedout to be'beyond reasonabledoubt' for hemajority f scientistsnvolved. t was abattle about received ssumptions egardingnsectcapacities, nd a will-ingnessor unwillingnesso abandon those assumptions n the face of aphenomenon hatprofoundlyndermined hem.A Description of the DanceWhen Karl vonFrisch nnouncedthathoneybees se a symbolic ystemocommunicate the location of food and other materials his claim wasgreetedwith ncredulity.3uch a discoverywas unanticipated o say theleast.What came to be known s the honeybeedance language'was soonconfirmed yotherbehavioral cientists Griffin,976 [1950]). After onFrisch's original work, manymore facets about the dance have beengarneredfrom observations nd experiments.Overall they testifyhathoneybees se a sophisticatedommunicationystemhat nablesthem oshare nformationbout the ocationand natureofresources.Von Frischdiscovered he dance while tudying hatcolorshoneybeescan perceive.He observedthat after lacing sugarsolutionon an experi-mental able- to see ifthebees could be trained o respondto colors- alongtimemight lapsebefore hey ound he food. But after ne honeybeefoundthe solution,bees soon began swarming round the feeder.4Heinferred hatsome communicationwas transpiringn the hive that func-tionedas a means of recruitment. on Frisch thenmarked hefirst ee tofind hesugarsolution nd observedher actionsback at the hive. He sawherperform curiousmovementhathe calledthe round dance': the beemovesin a circle,and once the circle s completedshe loops aroundtodescribe t ntheopposite direction,whence she turns o retrace he samecircle, nd so on (Figure 1). Forconvenience,n thesefirstxperimentshe



5/38

10 Social Studies of Science 34/1sugar solution was placed close to the hive; von Frisch concluded thathoneybees erform he rounddance forfood sourcesnear thehive.Von Frisch soon identified he waggle dance' performedwhen theresource s at some distancefrom he hive.The waggledance resemblesfigure ight.The dancermakes a short run on the vertical omb. Aftercompleting he wagglerun',she loops around, omes back and retraces t,then oops around n theoppositedirection eturningo tracethe wagglerunagain,and so on (Figure1). She often e-inscribeshe exactsame run.But as she is also moving boutto some extent, herun maybe repeated ta slightly isplaced spot; n any case, all waggleruns of the samedance arenearly dentical n length nd orientation.5he 'round' dance givesway tothe waggle' dance after hebee has completed circle nd beginsto circletheotherway:atthatpoint, here s a brief ateral ibration hat asts ongerand longer s, in experimentalituations, he food source smoved fartherand farther way from hehive.6Von Frisch regarded he twodances asdiscretetypes,but this view has been revised and theyare presentlyconsidered he same dance (Kirchner t al., 1988; Seeley,1995: 96).7 Onthe mpetus ftradition,he distinction etween hetwodances persistsnmany extbook ccounts.Dances are overwhelminglybout flower atches.When a honeybeediscoversa rich patch, she returns nd seeks out her hive-matesn aspecific ocation near the hive entrance called the 'dance floor'. Sheperformshe dance on the vertical omb in the darkhivesurrounded ynumerouspotential ecruits. he dancer pauses for ntennal ontactwithher followers,nd totransferome of the nectar hehas harvested o them(Dreller& Kirchner,1993). The communicative ature of the dance isapparent n that dances are neverperformedwithout n audience (vonFrisch, 1967a; Seeley, 1995; Griffin,001 [1992]). While the dance ismostly sed to indicatethe locationofflowers,t is also used forpollen,waterwhen the hive s overheating, axymaterialswhenthecomb needsrepair,and new living quarterswhen part of the colonymust relocate(Griffin,001 [1992]: 203-04).Dances areperformednlywhere here spressing eed in thehive,orfor food sources that are especiallyrich. When sources are abundant,honeybees ely n their enseofsmell to locate them.There is an inverserelationship etween heintensityf source odors and theuse ofdances;thestrongerhesurrounding cents, nd thusthe scentsbroughtnto thehive, the less the dance is needed (and used) to communicatewhereresources an be found.Recentevidence uggests hatdancesare executedmorefrequently uring he fallthan n the spring forduring he latterseason both food sources and presumably dors are more abundant (J.Gould, personal communication).Cognitive ethologistDonald Griffinsumsup thesignificancefsearching orodors and using nformationsfollows: Odors areused to find oodsourcesnear thehiveor when close toa distantgoal, but the symbolicdances are used to reach the generalvicinityfdistant oals' (2001 [1992]: 203).



6/38

Crist: Can an insect speak? 11Honeybee researchers gree that honeybeesuse bothdancing andodorsto identifyhe ocationofresources Seeley, 1991; Gould & Gould,1995 [1988]); which of the two will be relied on more,and how theirrespective mportance s weighted, depend on environmental ircum-stances and/or ive needs.8The importance f odor was also notedbythediscoverer f the dance, and underscoredby the factthat recruits reassistedby the dancer and otherforagersmarking he site with a scentorgan called the 'Nasonov gland' (von Frisch, 1950: 60-66). 'In doingthis',von Frisch surmised, they apparently pplyto the food source ascent which s very ttractiveo otherbees. It seems to carry hemeaning"Come here;thisway!"' (1950: 66).The dance is a code thatconveys hedirection, istance, nd desir-ability f the flower atch,or otherresource,discovered. he straightun

of the dance on theperpendicular oneycomb reates an anglewith thevertical fgravityhat s equal to theanglethe bee has flown,withrespectto thesun,from he hive to thefeeding lace (von Frisch, 1967a: 137).9The dance is a template a 'geometrical ymbolism', n Griffin's ords(2001 [1992]: 195) - thatcharts he direction hattherecruits an fly othe discovered ource.Distance to the site is communicated y the speed of the dance. Inexperimentalettings,he dance slows down as thesugar olution s movedfartherway Butler,1954: 205). Distance is possibly lso codified n thelength f thewaggle run,whichbecomes longer he fartherhesource isfrom hehive Seeley, 1995: 39). According o Griffin,the detailednatureof distance communication as been difficulto determine'.Given thatboth the rateof circling nd the length f thewagglerun correlatewithdistance nformation,it is notpossiblefrom urrentlyvailabledata to becertainwhichproperty .. is actually erceived yotherbees and used todetermine he distancetheywillfly' Griffin, 001 [1992]: 197-98; seealso Michelsen et al., 1989). Further omplicatingmatters s thefindingthat t s not distanceperse thebees indicate, ut rather he effort eededtoarrive t the dance location; he dance slowsdown whenthe site suphillor thewind s contraryo therequired lightoute Lindauer,1971 [1961]:88-89).10In addition to direction nd distance,the dance communicates hedesirabilityfa resource Lindauer,1971 [1961]: 34; Butler,1954: 203).Researchers have long maintained that desirabilitys expressed n thedance's 'liveliness' or 'enthusiasm': the richer the source, the livelierthe dance.According oGriffin,vigor r intensity.. is easilyrecognizedby experiencedobservers' (2001 [1992]: 198). Martin Lindauer, vonFrisch'smostwell-knowntudent nd colleague,observed hatdesirabilityis also communicatedby dances for iving quarters,when part of thecolonyendeavors o relocate:

A dance for n inferiorwelling lace is performed uite sluggishly.hisis, indeed,a subjective haracteristic,utso strikinghat ny ayman andifferentiatesluggishfrom livelydance. Moreover, t can be estab-lished that sluggish ance alwayshas fewer ees as dance followershan



7/38

12 Social Studies of Science 34/1a lively ne, nd t s brokenp after few econds. livelyance,whichhasa highlyualified wellingo announce,an astmanyminutes,venhours, nd it is obvious hat hereby anymorenewcomersecomealertedndinformedhanby a danceof short uration.1971 [1961]:48)

Recentstudiesemphasizedance duration s the signof desirability.ikeLindauerbeforehim, Seeleyobservesthat the longerthe dance lasts themorebees the nformationeaches,resultingn greater arvestinglacrity(Seeley,1995: 92). But Seeleyalso agreesabout thesubjectivempressionof highly nergetic'dances for desirablesources, and close analysesofvideotapeddances have dentifiedheprecisemechanics fmovementhatproduce the impressionof liveliness Seeley, 1995: 92; Griffin, 001[1992]: 198).In the late 1950s,AdrianWennerdiscovered hat sounds accompanywaggledances (Wenner, 962). The sounds areprobably erceived y thehoneybees as airwaveand substratevibrations Griffin, 001 [1992]:199-201). " Both observations, nd experimentswithmechanicalbees,suggestthat sounds are crucial,for workers annot be recruitedwhendances are silent Michelsenet al., 1989; Dreller& Kirchner, 993: 321;Gould & Gould, 1995 [1988]: 112). Researchers uspectthatthe soundsmay convey omethingbout the desirabilityf the site,but theirpreciserole ormeaning emainsunknownGriffin,001 [1992]: 201).WhyCall it Language?The question of language in the animal world is tricky n requiringcomparisonwithhuman anguage.The problem s that ftheyardstickfhuman languageis too strict henlanguagemay be excluded,from heoutset,fromotherspecies. On the otherhand, if the defining eaturesabstractedfromhuman language are too general,there s a dangerofattenuating he notion of language, such that all sorts of signals (forexample,alarm calls or matingcalls) could count as linguistic. o thequestion becomes whethercriteriacan be abstracted that are generalenoughto includeother pecies, yetrobust noughto excludeall mannerofgestures rom ecoming language'.Since the early days of its discovery, oneybeecommunication asbeen called the dance language',moreoften hannot without kepticalqualms. Occasionally,language' is scare-quoted o indicatereservationsabout its verbatimpplicabilityo insect ommunication.et ncontrast othe purelyfigurativesage of dance', the conceptof 'language' is em-ployed n a more iteral ein. Robust affinitiesetween he dance languageand human anguageare expressed n severalways,ranging romntuitedsimilaritieso deliberate omparisons. n the nextsections, identifyhewayshoneybee ommunications conceptualized s language nthe scien-tific iterature:t is described s rule-governed,imultaneouslytable anddynamic, symbolic ystem,nd a performativediom.



8/38

Crist: Can an insect speak? 13The Dance as a Stable ndDynamicRule-SetThe dance isgrasped s a rule-governedctivity,nthatfairlyeliable ulescan be formulated orhow, when, and whydances are performed.reconstruct he rule-setfromknowledge bout the structural nd prag-matic regularitiesfthedance sharedbythehoneybee cientific ommu-nity nd routinely escribed nbehavioral nd generalbiology extbooks.The rule-set of the dance* In dancing,follow he standard emplate hatconveysdirection, is-tance,and desirabilitySome individualvariability otwithstanding,he code is fairlyn-variant nd precise ? 20-30? fordirection)n communicatinghe

coordinates f the resource.* Dance the most urgentlyequired esourceThe dance is a systemfordealingwithcolonyneeds. Resourcepriorities re notpreset,but contingentn such needs. For exam-ple, if pollen supplies (a protein source) fall beneath a certainminimumin the hive, dances will recruit followers o pollensources.* Everything eing equal, dance fornectarThe carbohydrateectar hathoneybees onvertnto honey s theirmostimportant ood item. f nothing lse is required,dances willordinarilynform bout flower atches.'2* Everythingeing equal, dance for he closestsourceWhen the samequality ood s offeredt two differentistances, hehoneybees visiting he nearer location are more likelyto dance(Gould & Gould, 1995 [1988]: 96).* Ifthe discovered esource s rich and reliable, nlythen dance aboutit Dances are not executed indiscriminately,ut only forrich re-sources hat re bestexploited wiftlyndby greatnumbers f bees.Dances maynot be used at all, ifresources an be located strictlythrough mell. Only afterrepeatedvisitshave demonstrated hereliabilityf a source will a recruitdance for t (Gould & Gould,1995 [1988]: 95).* If there s urgentneed in thehive,then dance even forresources hatare not rich'Prudence disappearsduringtimes of extremedearth' (Gould &Gould, 1995 [1988]: 95). The rule to dance onlyforrich,reliablesources s suspended fthere s direneed in the hive.What s calledthe dance threshold' howrich sourceneeds to be for hebees todance about it- is notfixed, utshiftsccording o colonyneedsorenvironmentalarametersSeeley,1995: 102-07).* Dance at thedesignated lace in thehiveThere is a specificocation nthehivefor heperformance fdancesreferredo as the dance floor'.



9/38

14 Social Studies of Science 34/1Neverdance aloneThe dance is not a mechanical reaction upon discovery f a re-source. Honeybees dance only withina communicative ontext,interruptingo engage n physical ontactand food exchangewiththeir ollowers.

That a rule-set or he dance can be extrapolated s integral o itsunder-standingas language. As LudwigWittgenstein rote about attributinglanguage to a newly encountered ribe: there should be 'a regular on-nexion [sic] between what they say, the sounds they make, and theiractions' (1968 [1953]: section207). Ifthe honeybees re considered s anon-human ribe hatevincescommunicative ehavior, or heir ommu-nicationto count as linguistic t must exhibit egularityn structure nduse. Butwhileregularitys a necessary eature, y tself t s insufficientorcommunication o be robustly omparablewith anguage- a degreeofcomplexitys also required.Both order nd complexity ave been identi-fied s keydimensions fhuman anguage Bennett,1976). One aspectofthecomplexityf the dance rule-set esides n ts ntricacy:f tconsistednjust one or tworules, henreferenceo itas a 'language'maynothave beensustained. he dance also exhibits omplexityn its versatile mployment,which discuss ater.Human beings followgrammatical nd pragmatic ules of language-use witha high degreeof reliabilitynd withoutdeliberation.'3When Iobey a rule', wroteWittgensteinn a widelycited aphorism, I do notchoose. I obey the rule blindly' 1968 [1953]: section219, emphasis noriginal). PhilosophersG.P. Baker and P.M.S. Hacker argue that thispassage was intended o call attentiono theprimacy f action- not toexpose human mindlessness:blind compliance with rules is not 'theblindness f gnorance, utthe blindness fcertitude. knowexactly hatto do' (1984: 84, emphasis n original).Observance of rules in humaninteraction mplicatescommunicative ompetence- a fairly ffortlesscapacity o follow hared rules- without nyreflectivenowledge boutthemrequired. hus, theextrapolationf a rule-set or he dance languagedoes not imply hat thehoneybees re deliberatelyollowing ules,onlythat hey an be seento abidebythem nd use themcompetently.The dance is portrayeds a template hat s used bythehoneybees na varietyfways.While ts form s structurallynvariant,napplication hedance is responsive o environmentalonditions nd hiverequirements.The direction, istance, nd desirabilitymarkers re immutable, ut thesources soughtand danced about are not rigidly ixed.Like order andcomplexity,he twinfeatures fstabilitynd dynamismave been identifiedas core features fhuman anguage;for xample, relativelyixed yntaxenablesthegeneration f an indefinite umber f new sentences. tabilityand dynamismre also evident nthepragmatics fspeech.Conversationaccommodates n open-ended angeofsocialsituations,ut also embodiesinvariant tructural eaturesunconstrained y particulars see Coulter,1983; Heritage,1984; Atkinson& Heritage, 1984). In a ground-breaking



10/38

Crist: Can an insect speak? 15FIGUREThe Code at a Glance

00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

Source: Reprinted y permission fthepublisher rom ees: TheirVision, hemical enses, ndLanguage by Karl von Frisch. Cornell,NY: Cornell University ress, Copyright ) 1950,1971 CornellUniversity.

paper,ethnomethodologistsarveySacks, Emanuel Schegloff,nd GailJeffersonemonstrated hat the rules ofturn-takingn conversationon-stitute 'formal pparatuswhich tself s context-free,n suchwaysthat tcan, in local instances of its operation,be sensitive o and exhibit tssensitivityo variousparameters f social realityn a local context' Sackset al., 1974: 699-700).Behavioral cientists o not explicitly escribethe dance as 'context-free' nd context-sensitive',et heir epresentationsortraytalongtheselines. Its form s alwaysrecognizably he same, but it accommodatesdifferenturposes, shifting ircumstances, rgentneeds, and unprece-dentedevents;while tructurallydentical very ime, t s also contextuallyflexible.The scientific nderstanding f the dance can be succinctlyencapsulatedby paraphrasing acks et al. (1974): 'The honeybeedancelanguage s a formal pparatuswhich tself s context-free,n such waysthat tcan, in local instances f tsoperation, e sensitive o and exhibit tssensitivityto various parameters of social reality n a local context'.Thecontext-freeimension of the dance is rendered,forexample, by vonFrisch: The bees orient hestraightortion fthe dance atthe sameangleto theforce fgravitys theangletheyhave flownwithrespect o the sunduringthe flight romhive to feedingplace' (1950: 77). It can also bedelivered ictoriallysee Figure 2).The context-sensitiveimensionhas emerged n a variety ffindingsaftermore than 50 yearsof research.The empiricalfindings bout thedance canbe classified nder woheadings:responsivenesso local context(as dances trackvaried and changing nvironmentalarameters) nd to



11/38

16 Social Studies of Science 34/1social reality as dances changeaccording o colonyneeds and commu-nicativefeedback). I summarize certain findings hat demonstrate hesensitivityf the dance to factors xternal nd internal o the hive.Sensitivityf thedance to local context:* Dances gauge shifts fresource vailabilityDances are effectiven monitoring hanges n quality nd quantityof availableresources.Changesin flower atchescan occur swiftly,sometimeswithinhours; pollen peaks last 2-3 days. Dances cantrack these changes, enabling the colony to keep pace with adynamic, competitive, nd often ephemeral environment seeGould & Gould, 1995 [1988]: 88; Seeley, 1995: 54ff., 8).14* Dances aregaugesof news

There is another sense in which the dances reportnews. If twoequidistant eeders re made available one withpoor quality ood,the otherwith rich- mostdances will,of course,be forthe richsource. f thepoor station s changed o the ame quality ood as therichone, bees experiencinghechangedancemore often hanthosealready ccustomed o therich ource.The dances for herespectivesites thusgaugethe relative hangeof one resource n comparisonto the otherrather hanreflectingheir bsolute status. Bees areoptimists',Gould & Gould note, 'exaggerating ositiveturns nfortune ..' (1995 [1988]: 96).* Dances are sensitive o weatherThere is circumstantiallexibilityn the executionof dances. If astorm s approaching, ees foraging t distant ites stop dancingabout thosesites,while bees foraging elatively ear thehive con-tinueto do so (Gould & Gould, 1995 [1988]: 96).* The audience of the dance takes the ayof the and into accountIfa bee trained o feedfrom n experimentaltationn a boat, n themiddle of the ake,subsequently ances this ocation, he is appar-ently nable to recruit ees (Gould & Gould, 1984). (I discuss thisexperimentn detail ater.)

Sensitivityfthe dance to social reality:* Dances are always ddressedExperiments ith mpty ivesreveal hatbees neverdance withoutan audience.* Dances are sensitive o informationeceived rom ellowworkersDancersmodifyheir ehaviornresponse o communication bout

what is required n the hive.A dancer whose resource s not asdesirableor necessary s anotherdancer's willstop dancingfor t;dancers listen o the"applause" of theunloaders' Gould & Gould,1995 [1988]: 99). For example,when the hive s overheating ateris required o cool itdown. Bees carrying ectarfind tdifficultotransfertto worker ees, in contrast o bees carrying ater.Water



12/38

Crist: Can an insect speak? 17carriersare relieved f theirburdenswithgreatgreed' (Lindauer,1971 [1961]: 24). The water s deposited hroughouthehive,andfanning y workerbees createsa circulation f air that cools thehive.After he hivehas cooled,the collector erselfmustrun aboutthehive to unload the water she carries. This rejecting ttitude',concluded Lindauer, containsthe message "Waterneedsfulfilled",and the watercollectingwill thus stop' (Lindauer, 1971 [1961]:24).1

Dances are used to share, nd compare, nformationThis applies to the most innovative se of the dance - duringswarmingwhen part of the colony must relocate due to over-crowding. his is a first-timeituation hatno bee has everexperi-enced, yetthe dance is put into operationas an explorative ndcommunicative ool about relocation ites (Griffin, 001 [1992]:204). Several scouts' travelconsiderabledistances to investigatepotential iving uarters, nd thenreturn nd dance, on top oftheswarm,the location and qualityof the cavities visited. Dancersattend ach other'sdances. Ifthe cavity earned about is better hatthe one a scoutpreviously eported, hemayswitch o dancingforthe superiorone, or (in most cases) stop dancingabout the lessdesirable ite Seeley & Buhrman,1999: 29-30). Behavioral cien-tistshave referred o thisswitch s a 'conversion' Butler,1954:165). Bymeansof a gradual nd systematic innowing rocedurewhich researchers haracterize s the bees' 'reaching onsensus'-fewer nd fewer avities re danced for ntil ll dances are about thesinglebest cavity o which the swarm relocates Lindauer, 1971[1961]; Seeley& Buhrman,1999; Griffin,001 [1992]).16

Keeping nfocushow the themes fhuman-animal ontinuitynd animalmind are foregroundedn thehoneybee iterature,t is importanto notean emergent ualityof the dance as a structurallytable and flexiblyapplied system. he dances are deployedto meetvarious colony needs;changedto monitor hiftingnvironmentalonditions; esponsive o com-municationwithhivemates; nd switched n thebasis ofsuperiornforma-tionfrom therdancers.As a whole,these featuresuggest hat hedanceis a tool used bythebees,rather han a behavioral attern igidlymitted.This implication s acknowledged n the literature. or example, theauthors of the textbookLinguistics ote that honeybeesdo not dancewithout n audience,and remark hatthis indicates hatthe dance is notmerely n automatic esponse onditioned ythereturn o the hivewithrich supplyof food' (Akmajianet al., 1987: 14). In his AnimalMinds,Griffin evotes largesectionto thehoneybeedance in whichhe empha-sizes its multi-purpose ses, and the fact thatdancing is not executedmechanically 2001 [1992]: 190-211). He highlights he enterprisingdeploymentf the dance system ornewquarters,when t s employedn a'totally nprecedentedituation. he same code indicates he ocation nd



13/38

18 Social Studies of Science 34/1qualityofsomething s differentrom oodor water s one can imagine'(2001 [1992]: 205). The enterprising,ynamic pplicationof the dancemeets Griffin'sonceptionof versatility', hich he argues s a plausiblecriterion fmindful ction n the animalworld.Turn-of-the-20th-centuryaturalist,Maurice Maeterlinck, aised aquestionafter escribing he queen's excitement uring warming:Doesthisprodigious motion ssue fromher, or is she its victim?' 1901: 79).ParaphrasingMaeterlinck, he same questionmight e posed about danc-ing: Does thisprodigiousdirection-givingystem ssue from he bees, orare they tsvictims?' n otherwords, do honeybeesmean what they ay?Whilethis uestionmaynotbe answerablenscientificrother onsensualcontexts, hehoneybees'versatile nd flexible mployment f theirdancesuggests hat t s a reasonablequestiontopose."7This alone is intriguing,and, as I discussshortly,lso vexing or ome.I havediscussedhowthefacts bout dancingcan be reconstructednterms of a rule-set,which is both context-freea fixedtemplate) andcontext-sensitiveresponsiveto externalconditions, nternaldemands,and communicativeeedback). now turn omore robust tandards f thedance-as-language nvoked in the scientificiterature: ts symbolic ndperformativeimensions.While thesymbolic nd performativespectsareinextricablyonnected, these dimensions meritseparatediscussionfortheyare representedn distinctways. Scientists xplicitlyoint out thesymbolismf thedance as a linguisticeature fhoneybee ommunication.The performativeorce fthe dance, on the otherhand, emerges mplicitlyincasual referenceso theactions taccomplishes for xample,when t ssaid to announce' or report' discovered esource.The Dance as SymbolicThe fact hat he dancesymbolicallyepresentstates f affairsn theworldis regarded s its mostspectacular eature.On thisbasis alone,the dancehas been appraised s linguistic ehavior.Prominent esearchersnhoneybeebehavior nd ecologyhaveunder-scored thatthe bees use a symbolicsystem o represent nd transmitknowledge bout the world.With characteristicccentricity, .B.S. Hal-dane described hedance as 'a propositional unctionwithfourvariables,translated s follows. There is a source of foodsmelling fA, requiringneffort toreach t, ndirection , ofeconomicvalueD" ' (1952: 62). VonFrisch and Lindauer maintained hat the dances of the bees . . . transmittheknowledge fsignificantacts' 1996 [1956]: 540). Afterummarizingthe communicative chievementsfthedance,Lindauer noted that thereis no formof communicationn the animalkingdom omparableto thedance of the bees.Through simple symbolic igns, he bees communicateto each other factualmaterial ich ncontentwhenthey nnouncea goodfood source or suitabledwellingplace' (1971 [1961: 59). E.O. Wilsonwrote hatwhatdistinguisheshewaggledance is that t s a truly ymbolicmessagethatguidesa complexresponse fter hemessagehas been given'



14/38

Crist: Can an insect speak? 19(1971: 262). James nd Carol Gould observe hat thedance communica-tionsystems called a languagebecause it satisfies ll the ntuitiveriteriathat have been positedfora true anguage.The dance refers o subjectsdistantntime nd space' (1995 [1988]: 59-60). AndThomas Seeleynotesthata waggledance is truly symbolicmessage,onewhich s separated ntime and space from both the actions on which it is based and thebehaviors t willguide' (1995: 36).The firstcompelling ndication of the representational ature ofthedance was that xperimentersould,without riorknowledge, se theinformationt encoded to find he indicated ocation. ntegral o thedis-covery fthedance languagewas breakingtscode, hereby xpanding tscircle fsharedmeaning o includehumaneavesdroppers. eciphering hecode supportedthe view that the recruited ees themselves nderstandand act on the encoded information;t was counter-intuitiveo regard tsrepresentationalature s an accidental eature.'8VonFrischclaimedthat,usinga stop-watch, e could discern how far a dancingbee has flown',fromwhichhe deduced that the bees in the hive can also understandhemeaningof the dancer'srate ofturning nd can perceive hedistance heymustfly o reach the food' (1950: 73-74; emphasis dded). According oLindauer,the dance came to be regardedas a nativecode after t wasdecipheredby scientists,who could arrive t the danced location evenbefore he bees. He used this s an argument o dispelskepticism:

Some peoplewhohearabout the dance of the bees for he first imemaybe skeptical bout thepossibilityfthe bees beingable to communicate,bymeans ofsymbols, uch exact nformationoncerninghe ocationof asmallspot somewhere n the outdoors.However, here s no better rooffor hecorrectness fthe nterpretationf thedance of thebees, as it hasbeen givenbyProfessor on Frischthanthe experimentust described.The nestingplace was completely nknownto us beforehand, or thescouting ees had chosen tthemselves.Wewere able onlyto observe hedancingbees in the swarm nd to decide from heir ehavior he ocationofwhattheyhad found.We did not follow he swarm s itmoved nto tsnew dwelling;we were there at the futurenestingplace hours beforeitsarrival. 1971 [1961]: 38-39; see also Michener,1974: 133)Contemporaryehavioral ciencetakes tas a fact hatdances nform airlyreliably bout theexternalworld.The reliabilityf thedance's symbolismhas led to an intriguingevelopmentnbehavioral cience:thedances areusedbyscientistss a means ofstudying here ndhowhoneybees orage.Seeleyexplains:How could we acquire an overview f the colony'sforaging peration?The techniqueof directly racking colony's thousandsof foragers otheirwork iteswould certainly ot succeed. One cannoteventrack nebee as she flies wayfrom hehive, etalone thousands. o we turn o anindirect, ut powerful echniquepioneeredby one of Karl von Frisch'sstudents: et the bees inform s wherethey re going bymeans oftheirrecruitmentances. (1995: 48)

The symbolismf thedance is no longer nly subjectmatter fscientificinquiry,but has been incorporated nto scientificmethodology s 'an



15/38

20 Social Studies of Science 34/1indirect ut powerfulechnique'forgleaning nformationbout honeybeeforaging atterns.The dance can be regarded as a 'technique' in theLatourian sense as well: a mode of operation hat organizesdata' intoameaningful verview bout the stateand productivityf the surroundingenvirons an overview hatboth oneybees nd scientists an understandand utilize see Latour, 1999: 209-10). The dance is a source of nforma-tion for the foragers, nd has now also become one for the scientistsstudying heirforaging ehavior.The bees have thusbeen incorporatedinto the scientificrocess as full-fledgedctors,partnersn the generationofscientificnowledge,who arenot simply poken orby scientists ut aregranted reliable, ndependentvoice to speak to scientistsc.f. Callon,1989; Callon & Latour, 1992).The Dance as PerformativeThe referentialependability fthe recruitmentance is fully lack-boxedinits nstrumentalse, wherebyreading'dances s a means for determin-ing wherea colony'sforagers re gathering ood' (Seeley, 1995: 49). Thedance as a symbolic emplate, rustworthyndicator f foraging ctivity,and expedient rackerfcontingenciesretaken s givensn thismethodo-logical prescription.ntegratinghe dance's informationalontent ntoascientific atabase,without emurral r skepticism,s a markof how realits representationalature s considered.And it is not simply he dance'sreferential ualitythat is considered ndisputable, ut also that what itrepresentss actedupon bythebees. The dance is seenas followed hroughby action that matches its message; in an irreducibleway, observersunderstand t as prompting ction on the part of attendingbees. Toparaphrase rdinaryanguagephilosopher .L. Austin, ehavioral cientiststake t thathoneybeesdo thingswithdancing'.In his classic workHow to Do ThingsWithWords, ustin analysed'performativeorce' s the nterface etween anguage nd action,whereby'the ssuing f the utterance s theperformingf an action' (1975 [1962]:6). Familiar xamples factions ccomplished inguisticallyrecommand-ing, warning, nnouncing, dvising, pologizing, hreatening, romising,and the like.Withhis analysisofperformatives,ustinmade a landmarkcontribution o thestudyof language.He himself haracterized is con-tribution s questioning heingrained ssumption bout languagethattosay somethings always nd simply o state omething' 1975 [1962]: 12,emphasis n original).The mostspontaneous nd ubiquitousform fdepicting hedance isin termsof the actions it accomplishes:the dance is describedas aninvitation, summons, recallto action,or a recruitment;t is said toannounce,report, rguide.For example,von Frischwrote hat he danceis an invitation hichnotonly ecalls heformerollecting roup o actionbut also recruits ew members o strengthenheworking arty' 1967a:4). Relying n theperformativediomagainelsewhere, e maintained hat



16/38

Crist: Can an insect speak? 21the dancer announcedits discovery t home' and that it is clear that hedance insidethehivereports he existence f food' (1950: 69, 72). He alsodescribed hedanceras 'guiding'recruits o flowers1950: 83). Lindaueralso used performatives,eferringo thedance as a 'recruitingystem' nd'soliciting';he maintainedthat the dancer 'announces her discovery',and described followers s 'obeying summons' (1971 [1961]: 33, 23).Throughouthis workWisdom ftheHive, Seeley employs he performativedescriptionrecruitment ance'. Performativeoncepts expressthe in-ference hat here s a meaningfulemantic ink, nd continuityfaction,between the executeddance and the subsequentharvest t the dancedlocation.While scientists o notexplicitlyall thedance an Austinian erforma-tive, theyroutinely eploy a vocabularyof announcing, eporting,um-moning, ecruiting,oliciting,nviting, ommanding, nd guiding. n oneguise or another, hisvocabulary ssentially onveys hat the dance tellswhereresources re to be found. tsperformativeorce an thusbe nestedunder theconceptual uspicesof telling'. he obliquereferenceo telling,interredntheperformative ode, surfaces penlywhenscientists ranslatethe dance's message.Translations re imaginativeterations, r 'render-ings',ofthedance message n the form f humanstatements.While usedas metaphorical urns-of-phrase,hey are also realistically unctionalnconveyinghemeaningof the dance.Von Frisch had a predilection orquotingwhat the bees say withdancing:The messagebrought ya bee as sheperformedherounddanceseemed to be a very impleone,one that arried hemeaning Fly outandseek in theneighborhood f thehive!"' (1950: 57).19Notingthatdancesare performed orrichsources,he wrote that theyalso carry he basicmeaning"There is plentyof food and sweetness"' (1950: 65). He de-scribed hebees' markinghe ocationwith heirNasonovglandsas saying'Come here; thisway!' (1950: 66). Foragers attending 'round' dance,according o Lindauer, receive hemessage: "Fly outfrom hehive; rightin theneighborhoods foodto be fetched"' 1971 [1961]: 33).The device of rendering he dance in a humanvoice is profoundlyparadoxical.On theone hand,translations f the dance are not literal ifonly because its message is compatiblewith a variety f performativeutterances: s announcing r reporting; rdering, eseeching, r recruit-ing; describing, uiding, rdirection-giving.he meaning fthedance as aperformativetterance annot be univocally inpointedn humanwords.This indeterminacy f translations f animal signs, more generally, asprompted heir egard s a merecontrivance; uchtranslations ave beendismissed s nothing ut a 'dramatic diom' (see Bennett, 987: 200). Onthe otherhand,however ongue-in-cheekranslations fthe dancemaybe,theyare also dead serious in two ways. First,translations unction srealistic ehicles for clarifyinghe meaning and function f the dance.Second, translationsimplymake explicitperformativeshat are alreadyubiquitous in the honeybeeliterature.Austin clarifies erformativess



17/38

22 Social Studies of Science 34/1utterances hat can be renderedas 'a verb in the first erson singularpresent ndicative ctive' (1975 [1962]: 67). The directparallel with thedance is its translatabilitynto Austin'sgrammatical orm.This translat-abilityunderscores indeed in a dramaticfashion its intuitive nder-standing s a performative.The paradox s thatwhile translations annot convey iteralmeaning,at the same time they present the meaning of the dance starkly ndconcisely.Rendering he dance as speech divulges ts simultaneous roxi-mity o and distancefrom urlinguistic orm f ife:by revealingts sensethrough ranslation,ts indefinitenessf sense in the medium of humanlanguage s simultaneouslyxposed. Anyperformativeenders he baselineof the dance as doing something pointing o a stateofaffairsnthe worldand eliciting ction.Yet the dance cannot be rendered somorphicallyohuman anguage, o its meaning emains rredeemably nsettled: paque-ness lingers n the wake of its conversion nto words.This feelingofimprecision, owever,s less about the intrinsic atureof thedance, andfarmore about ourpartialityo the belief hatmeaning s only rystal learinwords.Maurice Merleau-Ponty hallenged hebias (or pride) of ogocen-trismwhen he stated: We have the feeling hat our language expressestotally. ut it s not because itexpresses otally hat t s ours; t s becauseitis ours thatwe believe texpresses otally' 1982 [1964]: 89-90).Austinnoted a class of primary' r primitive' erformativeshathaveneither xplicitnor precisemeaning;forexample, Shut the door' can bean order ran entreaty. ow inhuman nteraction hetherShut the door'is one or theother s,moreoften hannot,obvious without he utterancehaving o be overtly refacedwith I orderyou' or I beg you'. As Austinelucidated:

There re greatmany evices hat anbe usedformakinglear, ven ttheprimitiveevel,what ct t s we areperforminghenwesay ome-thing thetoneofvoice, adence, esture and above ll we canrelyupon henature f he ircumstances,he ontextnwhich heutteranceis issued. 1966 [1961]: 231)

In everydayife,performativesremostlywhatAustincalled primary' r'primitive'. gainst background frelations, ontext, xpression, r affectimplicitmeaningsbecome activelypresent,visibly ngaged,and realis-tically onsequential.Language entrains n indefinite angeof addenda,implications,nd effects, hichcan be deliberate, nintentional,r a littleof both. Social theoristHarold Garfinkel eferred o the tacit facets oflinguisticnteraction s 'unspokenbut understood t ceteraclause[s]', or'glossingpractices' 1989 [1967]: 73ff.;Garfinkel Sacks, 1970: 342).2?The sensibilityo languageas a living henomenon hatalwaysmarshalsthe resources hatwordlessly xpand tsperfunctoryemblance s a centralreason that ordinary-language hilosophers,phenomenologists, thno-methodologists,nd others ave nsisted n attentiono a 'phenomenology



18/38

Crist: Can an insect speak? 23of speech', 'alongside an objective cience of language' (Merleau-Ponty,1969: 216).Philosophers .L.Austin nd John earlehaveshown hatperformativeaction is not simply matter f the action of one person automaticallyfollowinghe utterance fanother.For an utterance o havethe ntendedeffect ertain reconditionsmustbe fulfilled:heperformativehouldhavea point; an audience for t should be present; nd it must be properlyacknowledged. hese prerequisitesre nplacewith heperformancefthedance. It certainly as a point- tracking esources nd keeping he hiveproperly tocked; dances are not performedwithout n audience; andattendinghoneybeesacknowledgedances as activeparticipants nd byvisitinghe indicated ocations. f theseconditionswere not operative ifdancingoccurred n the absence ofotherbees, or if tsmessagewereonlyrandomlyheeded - its potentialregardas linguistic ehaviorwould bemuch attenuated; t would seem betterdescribed as a reflex esponse,rather han a communicative ct.The success ofperformativeslso hingeson a background f commonmeanings,knowledge, nd expectations; erformativesre powerful in-guistic onventions nly against hebackdropof an intersubjective ayoflife.Society s thus mplicated n thestrong ense ofa covenant fsharedunderstandings. or example, if orders re to be followedcertain rankrelationsmust be presupposed;announcements ake sense if theybearnews; promisesre made for ctionsthat renot expected o transpire s amatter f course; a reports givenabout an actual state of affairs; dviceoffered sually presumesthat the advisorhas more knowledgeand/orexperience hanthe advisee.So besides the basicprerequisites, varietyfconditionsuniquely adequate to differenterformatives and rangingfromnebulously ssumed to crisplydefined must be secure fortheirfelicitousccomplishmentseeAustin,1966 [1961]: 123-52; Searle, 1965:147). Such groundworklements onstitutehe et cetera lause' ofspeechacts.Performatives,hen, are exquisite horthand f intersubjectiverans-parency.The rendering f the dance as a performativeas profoundconsequences along those lines. The moment the dance is seen as an-nouncement,report,or recruitment,t can no longerbe witnessedasspasmodic movement: t becomes a potentialsign of honeybee inter-subjectivity. shared worldofmeaningand knowledge whatWittgen-steinfamously alled a 'formof life'- is insinuated n thebackground fthe dance as performativection.An ingenious scientific xperiment peaks to this dimension of asharedbackgroundforthe success of a performative.thologistJamesGould rigged set-upwhere honeybeedanced for richsourceoffood'purported' o be found nthemiddleofa lake.After lacingfood n a boatat the danced locationhe observed hatno recruits rrived. hinking hatmaybethe bees werereluctant o fly verwater,he controlled heexperi-mentbyplacingfood all theway across the lake on the oppositeshore.Whenthis ocationwas danced in thehive, he bees flew crossthe ake to



19/38

24 Social Studies of Science 34/1get to the food.The authorsdo not nterpretheseresults, ut suggest hattheyare unexplainable n mechanistic erms (Gould & Gould, 1984:281).This experiments intriguingor, t face value, t ought o count as acase that nvalidates he informativend enjoining fficacy f the dance.And yet t creates xactly heoppositempression: t bolsters he regard fthe dance as linguistic ehavior,for n resonance with anguage-use, tintimates n interpretivend interactive ontext n the receptionof themessage,rather han deterministicinkbetween he provided oordinatesand subsequentvisitto the location.The experiment nsinuates hatthebees are not automaticallyaused to visit location,but act more n linewith nterpretinghe dance's message. In short, f the dance causestheforaginghatensues,thenthe bees failto arrive t the boat site; butifthedance is meaningfulor hebees,thentheir ailure o arrive t the boat siteis a success.Whatblocksthe nterpretationf thisresult s a failure f the dance'sefficacys theperception f the dance as a performativect.The unstated,butopen to view,understandings thatdancing bout food n the middleof a lake misfires, ecause theappropriate xistential onditions o followup the dance'smessagedo not hold.A 'report' bouta resource s liabletocomparison gainst familiarandscape; f hereport ails obe credible nthe faceofsucha comparison, hen t s simply isregarded.he existentialprerequisitesor he success of theparticular peechact are not in place.For the Goulds there s something stonishing bout the bees ignoringdances about food in the middleof a lake. Given theimplications f thisfinding,ucha response s not surprising: ithin hereasonableboundsofits interpretations the potential mputation f disbeliefo the attendingbees.Yet amazement s notsimply orollary o thepossibilityfhoneybeemind. It is also an apropos responseto the possibility f a formof lifecomparablewithhuman existence, form f ife hatmaysharecertain etcetera clauses' withus. The suspicionofsome level of commensurabilitysurfaces, venas it s too awkward o acknowledge.Pushingtheapplication f Austin's nalysis, tmightbe arguedthat,giventherangeofperformativest is compatiblewith, he dance mayberegarded s whatAustinvariously alled an implicit',primary', r primi-tive' performative.21he dance as a communicative ct regarding helocation and qualityof a commodityhas the observableupshot f theattending ees visitinghedanced location.FollowingShirley trumandBrunoLatour,thehoneybeesmaybe regarded s livingn a 'performativesociety' n which hey re notpassivepawnsof a fixed ocial structure,utbymeansoftheirdancing re actively egotiatingnd renegotiatinghattheir ociety s and what t will be' (1987: 789).22At the same time,neither ts informativeontentper se, nor itsphenomenology,an revealto a humanperspectivewhether he forceofthe dance is an order, r an entreaty,r,for hatmatter, omethinghatnohumanwordexactly ranslates.fhoneybeesdo speak, t is also the case



20/38

Crist: Can an insect speak? 25thatwedo notfully nderstand hem: heetcetera lausesoftheir ancingare,for he mostpart, n obscure affair.

Symbolism-cum-Performance: The Dance as a CompleteActFor purposes of clarity have consideredthesymbolic nd performativedimensions eparately.n conveyinghemeaningofthe dance, however,behavioral cientists o not separate tssymbolic ontent rom tsperfor-mativenature. Fused as one, the symbolic nd performativeacets con-stitute he dance as a completect,forbydescribing stateofaffairsn theworld the dance promptsrecruits o harvest t. The single concept inthe iteraturehat xpresses hefull cope ofthe dance as bothsymbol ndaction s itsrecurrentescriptions a 'message':a messagehas informativecontent nd implicates hat twill,or should,be followed hrough.Symbol and action are roped together n compact statements hatdeliver hegistof the dance. For example,von Frisch, afternoting hatbees attending he dance clean themselves,oad up withhoney,hastentothe hiveentrance, nd fly o thefeeding lace', summed tsmeaning hus:'The dance was the sign thattheres something o befetched'1967a: 29,emphasis dded). 'There is' corresponds o thesymbolic epresentationfa resource,while to be fetched' orresponds o theperformativeunctionofharvestingt.Regarding owthe collection f waterfor oolingthehiveis instigated nd stopped,Lindauermaintained hat it is really mutualcommunicationhereby he beggingbee givesboth distinct nformationabout the social demands and a strictorder o continue or to ceasecollectingwater' 1971 [1961]: 30; emphasis noriginal).Seeley'swordingthat n dancingthe bees 'share knowledge' nd 'share information' lsobundlestogethertssymbolic nd performativeature 1995: 85, 88).Symbolism ndperformancere nseparablen lived anguage.Philos-opherswho focus on language-usehave regularlymade thispoint. BakerandHacker,for xample,write hat whatgives igns heirife,whatmakesthemsymbols,s therole we givethem, heuse we makeofthem, n ourdaily linguistic ransactions' 1984: 134). In his analysisof linguisticbehavior,Jonathan ennett 1976) contends hatcentral ses of anguageare to informand to enjoin. While admitting hese are not its soleoperations, e submits hat languagecouldbe imagined obe used fornootherpurposethanto informnd enjoin;therefore,e reasons, hesemustbe essentialconstituents. ehavioralscientists onceptualize the dancealongthese ines- thusofferingot an imaginedbutan actualsystem hatfulfills ennett'sfunctions f language:it informs bout a richresourceand enjoinsforagerso go to it.In the configurationf the dance as informativend enjoining, heevents of the scout's discovery, er dancingabout it, and the recruits'subsequentharvest ecomemeaningfullynd seamlessly onnected n thecognitive-perceptualtandpoint f theobserver.J.B.S. Haldane captured



21/38

26 Social Studies of Science 34/1thisdiachronic acet n describing ances as 'at once histories nd proph-esies' (1952: 73). The dance extends emporally nd spatially eyondthemoment nd place of tsperformance,ssembling he dancer'spast detec-tionof theresource, erpresent eenactment f ts ocation, nd the futureconcertedharvest.As the honeybees' nforming-enjoiningool, the dance both arrangesand reveals their world as one of spatial expansion and temporalextension. he colonyemerges s nested n a familiar bode knownandsupervised,presupposed and retraced,with every exploration nd ex-ploitation.The hive's surroundings ake on the primordial tatus of adwelling-place. he understanding f the dance as a complete act thusushers phenomenological anoramaof a meaningful, esigned orld cf.Crist, 1996). This is notovertlyrticulatedn the scientificiterature, utsurfaces s thebackground gainstwhich the facts bout thedance hangtogether.As I discuss shortly,he temporal-spatial ontinuum ncapsu-lated ntheunderstandingf the dance as both symbolic nd performativewas obliteratednan alternativeccount,which imed toreconfigure hathoneybeesdo, not as concerted nd meaningful ction,but as movementsorchestrated ithin, nd by, field f stimuli.UpsettingOrder: The Bees as an 'Evolutionary Freak'By now, scientists' se of theconcept language' n thehoneybee iteratureis also sustained by conventional orce- on the impetus of repetitionstemmingfrom ong-termusage within a research tradition.But theconventionalspectof the abelis onlyone sideofthe coin.The realist ideof the term dance language' emergesfrom ts non-trivial ffinities ithfeatures f human language. I have arguedthatboth generalstandards(rule-governed, omplex,flexible) nd robust ones (symbolic, erforma-tive) can be discernedthatapplyto human and honeybeenatural an-guages renderinghemnon-isomorphicallyognate.The reiterationf thelabel 'honeybee anguage' is therefore ot simply onventional: t is usedwithvaguebutliteralntent.This almost-serious dea of an insect with language has had anunsettling ffectn behavioral science. For example,the applicationofdancingon the swarm as a means of comparingpotentialnesting itesadvertised y dancers, nd ofarrivingt an agreementbout the bestone,has provoked he amazement f scientists. utler xclaimed:

Surelyhese re someofthemost stonishinghingshathaveyetbeendiscoverednthewhole ealm fbee behavior? owcanbeeswhich,nesupposes, ossessno powers freasoning,eachwhat mounts o anagreementnoneof everalossible estingites?1954: 166)Behavioral cologistJohnKrebs also expressed erplexitybouthoneybeelanguage:The chimp nd bee examples re always uotedas evidence or hecomplexityf animal anguage: himps ne can understand,utbees



22/38

Crist: Can an insect peak? 27seem o be ananomaly.itherheyre an evolutionaryreak,r weareawaitingormore cientistsfvonFrisch's enius.1977:792)

Butler's stonishmentt the use ofthe dance for chieving onsensus, ndKrebs' demurral oregard ees as linguistic eings, eem connected o theimplication fmind. It is reasonable to admitchimpanzeeshave mentalcapacities given theirevolutionary roximity o humans; about bees,however,one supposestheypossessno powersofreasoning'.StrumandLatouralso discern omplexitynprimateife activelytructuredhroughsocial skills,negotiations, lliances, and rivalries but regardeusocialinsects t a primitiveevel wherein theactors' ownbodies are irreversiblymoulded [via genotype]' 1987: 795).23 The intellectual nd layurge toclassifynvertebratess 'primitive' rganisms,whosepre-wiredmachinerysomehowdoes all the acting, s culturallyngrained nd deeplyhabitual.Thus, in his classicpaper What Is It LikeTo Be A Bat?' Thomas Nagelannounced that I have chosen bats instead ofwasps ... because ifonetravels oo fardown thephylogeneticree, eoplegraduallyhed their aiththat there is experience there at all' (1981 [1974]: 393).24The reticence to admithoneybees n the community f language-users,that Krebs and others ike linguists mile Benveniste 1952) andBennett 1987) havevoiced, temsfrom hemindfulnesshat anguage-useimplies. ndeed, conceptsofmemory,ttention, ecognition,nderstand-ing, nterpretation,greement, ecision-making,nd knowledge, s wellasquestionsabout cognition nd awareness,have surfacedregularlyn thehoneybee literature. arly researchersVon Frisch and Lindauer usedmental anguagegenerouslyhroughoutheirwritingsn honeybeecom-munication. ontemporaryehavioral cientist ould raises hequestionwithout iving definitiveesponse ofwhether oneybeeshavecognitive'abilitiesbeyond the basics of instinct nd conditioning' 2002: 41).Griffin, hose recentworkcenterson the questionof animal consciousawareness, rgues hat n thegrounds fcomparablehumanbehavior,t snotunreasonable o concludethathoneybeesmaybe 'consciously hinkingand feeling omething pproximatinghe informationheyare commu-nicating' 2001 [1992]: 210).Mind and language are internallyonnected,for as HaydenWhiteoffered,anguagecan be regarded s an 'instrumentfmediationetweenconsciousness nd theworld thatconsciousness nhabits' 1976: 29; em-phasis in original).The second definition f language in the OxfordDictionaryreads 'words and the methods of combiningthemfor theexpressionof thought'.Accordingto the influentialocial psychologistGeorgeHerbertMead - who was convinced hatonlyman has languagelanguage is the sine qua non of mind (Mead, 1962 [1934]). So whilebaselinedescriptions fthedance, and a diversityffacts ssociatedwithit, can be configured o fulfill ertain ntuitive nd formal tandards flinguisticbehavior,a demurral to recognizethe dance as a bona fidelanguagemaystem from he entailmentshisrecognitionwould involve



23/38

28 Social Studies fScience34/1namely, hat hedance maythenbe a tool thatmediates onsciousness', r'expresses hought'.Before ooking t a controversy ithinbiology n which these ssuessurfaced xplicitly, propose a conceptualframeworko clarify hywhatthebees do appears disconcerting.his frameworkan be extracted rompoint made by John earle in his analysis fspeech acts:

Foran instance f inguistic ommunication .. [to be] a message,one ofthethings hat s involved is] taking henoiseor mark ... as having eenproducedbya beingwith ertainntentions.It]cannot ust [be] regarded sa natural henomenon,ike a stone, a waterfall, r a tree. (1965: 137;emphasis dded)Searle proposeda typology o segregatenoise-like'or 'mark-producing'phenomena into intentional nd non-intentional orts. But what thehoneybeesdo baffles his tandard ypology.s their ecruitment ance tobe understood s produced by beingswith ntentions, r as a naturalnon-intentional henomenon? n the scientificiterature, he dance is oftendescribed as a 'message'. If its understanding s a message is takenseriously,hen pplying earle's syllogismhe noise or mark' of the dancemust be produced by beingswith ntentions'. uch an inference,venifobliquely ntuited,s dismaying,or here s no consensualmold- scientificor common-sensical to sustain hepropositionhathoneybees rebeingswith ntentions. he present-day eographyf beingswith ntentions' oesnot include in any widely haredsense) insects nd other lowerforms flife'.At the same time, whatis knownabout the dance resists ts facileregistrations a non-intentionalhenomenon. he dance defies he typol-ogy recitedby Searle. This is indeed a reason that its description topspeople: there is no ready-made typificationo contain symbol-usinginsects.Knowledge about the dance language,then, upsets order: concep-tually, he dance defiesthe taxonomy f behavior nto intentional ersusintrinsically eaningless; mpirically,he dance challenges expectationsbased on thephylogenetic istance betweenbees and man, and maybeseen, nKrebs'wording, s an evolutionaryreak'. he disruptionf orderleads to two kinds of responses.One response involves readiness toamend previous conceptions n order to accommodatea new phenom-enon. The otherresponsereaffirmseceivedviews, seeking o refute heexistence f the newphenomenon'. n thesection hatfollows, examinethe atter ypeofresponse o thehoneybeelanguage'- deliberatelycare-quoted.Rejecting the Dance Language 'Hypothesis'In themid-1 60s behavioral cientists drianWenner, atrickWells,andtheir ssociates ttackedwhat hey ecast s the dance languagehypothesis'.They contested that honeybees navigateon the basis of informationencoded in the dances they ttend, laiming nstead that t was scientistswho deciphered hedance and used the nformationo find he ocations.



24/38

Crist: Can an insect speak? 29ForWenner, he fact hat hedance contains nformationidnotmeantheattending ees use that nformation1971: 7, 37). Rather,he maintainedthatsuccessfulecruited eeshad acted as if heyhad used thedistance nddirection nformation e scientistshad chosen to measure' (1971: 52,emphasis n original).Gould, a pivotal scientistn the controversyhatensued, describedWenner'sview of the representational eatures f thedance as 'a fortuitousollectionof orientationalrtifactswithno actualrole n recruitment'Gould & Gould, 1995 [1988]: 73).Wenner onceded thatthe bees 'arrivedpredominantlyt or nearthesite ndicated n thedancemaneuver', utclaimedthat we cannotsay forcertain ... thatthese bees arrived t the site ndicatedbecause heywereable to interpretnd use quantitativenformationrovidedby successfulforagers'1971: 47; emphasis n original).He arguedthat nsteadofusingthesymbolism f thedance,the recruits ely olely n odors;he called thisview theolfactory ypothesis'.Wenner laimed thatrelianceon odor cuesto detectresourceswas a simpler and more sensiblehypothesis boutinsectbehavior hanthe dea ofa 'honeybee anguage':

I feelthat the languagehypothesiss no longer a usefulparadigm. t isbetter o saythatexperienced ees depend upon a conditioned esponseforre-recruitmento familiar ood sourcesand that nexperienced eesrelyupon an odor source as they earch for hat upplyof food to whichtheyhave been recruited.1971: 90)He proposed thisexplanation t a timewhenthesymbolic unction fthedance had been established n thescientificommunitys fact.The alternative ypothesis as a challenge o the dominant iew.Thesubsequent ontroversynfolded n a seriesofarticles nScience nthe ate1960s and early1970s,withvonFrischhimself esponding o hiscritics.25The olfactory iew inspireda series of new experiments o probe theefficacyof the dance as a symbolic system (see Gould & Gould,1995 1988]: 83ff.).The supporters f the olfactory ypothesis epeatedcertain of von Frisch's originalexperimentshathad demonstrated hehoneybees'use ofthe dance code: recruitsongregatedngreater umbersat thefeeding ite at whichthe dancer had been trained, nd ignored, rshowedup infewer umbers t, other eeding itesplaced inthefield. heolfactoryeam did not replicate he experiments er se, but added whattheytermed controls'- odors and an additionalcontrolhive- to theexperimentalet-up.Foragersfrom hecontrolhiveweretrained o forageat all stations.Now each locationhad bothpotent dorand moreforagingbees. Undertheexperimentalonditions reatedbytheolfactoryeam,thebees from he observationhive' showedno preference orthe locationspecified y thedance.26According o Gould, the disparity etweenvonFrisch'sresults ndWenner's esults eflectedheir se ofdifferentrainingtechniqueswith hebees (1975: 689).The challengersof the 'language hypothesis'maintainedthat theirexperimentshowedthatrecruited ees followed dor cues - adhering othe dancerand thefood she parcelsout - rather hanusing nformation



25/38

30 Social Studies of Science 34/1symbolically elivered.Von Frisch respondedthat odor controls'voidedthe experiments rom ctually esting hedance, forwhenodors n thehivebecome strong oneybees witch o usingonly mell o forage. onFrisch'spoint was that adding what the olfactory eam called 'controls'createdconditions hat liminated he need fordancing; heir xperimentsid notdisprove hedance language but preemptedtsperformance ymaking tsuperfluous.27 bout the olfactory xperiments, on Frischwryly om-mented: It is a pity hey ried o nvestigatehe mportance fdancingwithbees thatneveror seldom danced at all' (quoted in Gould & Gould, 1995[1988]: 76).The fact hat he olfactory ypothesis' ffered n explanationmore nlinewiththe chemical nature of insectcommunicationwas intriguingoscientists see forexample,Wilson, 1971: 266-67). The olfactory ropo-nents themselves, efended heir xplanation s being n agreementwithOccam's 'razor',or the law of parsimony'.28heirchallenge alled for nexperimenthatwoulddisentangle he use ofthedance's symbolismromreliance on odor, therebydemonstratingr disproving he coordinate-giving fficacyfthedance. Clinching roof f the dance wouldbe offeredif the dancesoftheforagers erealteredn such a waythatrecruitswouldproceed to a location to which the dancing foragershad never been'(Gould & Gould, 1995 [1988]: 79). This was achieved when Gouldperformedmisdirectionxperiments'n whichhe succeeded in gettingdancer to lie' about the ocation she had visited 1975; Gould & Gould,1995 [1988]: 79-83).29 By manipulating peculiarity f the bees' visualsystem, he placementof thecomb, and artificialighting, ould gotthedancertopointto a location hat he had nevervisited. ftherecruitswerefollowingdor (oftheresource nd/orocale) theywouldgo to the ocationthe danceractually eturned rom nottheone indicatedbyherdance. Ifthe recruitswere following he informationncoded in the dance, theywouldfly o the danced location eventhough hedancerhad neverbeenthere.The recruitedbees visited the location symbolicallyndicatedbythedance, despitethefactthatthedancerdid not carry heodor of thelocation.30Thisxperiment as regarded s confirminghe dance's repre-sentational unctionor hehoneybees, nd closing hecontroversy.Anyremaining oubtwas dispelledbythe constructionf a mechan-ical bee that can lead - apparently ot veryreliably, ut reliably noughto demonstrate hatbees garnernformation rom he dance - recruits odesignated itesto whichthe honeybee'has neverbeen (see Michelsenetal., 1989, 1991, 1992; Gould & Gould, 1995 [1988]: 83; J. Gould,personalcommunication). he use ofthe nformativeontent f the danceby honeybees is so well establishedtoday that, as noted, researchersemploy t to investigateheirforaging atterns Seeley, 1995). But thehoneybeebehavioral ommunity,npartdue tothechallenge heolfactoryteampresented, ecognizes hathoneybeesuse bothodor and thedancelanguageto find ources. ndeed,when resources re plentifulnd odorsprofuse, he honeybeesdo not (need to) use thedance.



26/38

Crist: Can an insect speak? 31Despite the olfactory eam being credited as contributing finerunderstandingof honeybee communication Gould & Gould, 1995[1988]: 83), Wenner and Wells never abandoned their strictolfactorypositionand resolute oppositionto the dance language. In 1990, theycoauthoredAnatomy fa Controversy:heQuestion fa 'Language'amongBees, n whichtheydraw on philosophy nd sociologyof science both toanalyzethecontroversynd topromote heir iew as, at least,an equallycredibleparadigm.3' hey arguethat t has not beenindisputable videncefromnature thatclosed the debate in favorof the dance language,butratherdeep-seatedsocial control' 1990: 209). Social factors uch as therewardsystemwithinscience, peer-grouppressure,perceived scientificauthority, nd 'New Age' thinkingn the culture at large are invokedthroughoutsee Wenner& Wells, 1990: 209, 186, 68, chapter1 ).32 Notsurprisingly,oncepts from science studies literature re used to makethese arguments.33n ascribing xtra-scientificnderpinnings,heir imwas to place the dance languageparadigm'on wobblygrounds.Wennerand Wells soughtto undermine ts epistemic tatusby maintaininghatnon-rational actorsunderpinned ts acceptance, ratherthan rationallyadjudicatedempirical vidence.Extra-scientificactorsdo figure minentlyn the debate- the mostevidentamong thembrought o the forefronty the challengers hem-selves.34n particular, ssues of human-animalcomparisonand animalmind werekeysticking oints forthe olfactory roponents.35ntegral othepromotion ftheolfactoryerspective as itsavowalas morefittingoinsectbehaviorthan an explanation f foraging ecruitment ia symbol-use. For the olfactory eam,ascribing anguageto bees amountedto theattribution f a sophisticated umanability o an organismwith minis-cule brain.According oWenner ndWells, hedance language presumedthathoneybees werecapable ofanthropomorphicuman levelbehavior'(1990: 63, 240). In support ftheolfactory iew,Ruth Rosinaffirmedhe'time-old truth'that both the physical nd psychicalcomplexities ave

attainedtheirmaximal n man', and differences etweenman and loweranimals 'are not only simplyquantitative, ut also qualitative' Rosin,1980: 461). The olfactory ypothesishusaimed to correct n ostensibleanthropomorphismhatprojectedlanguage on an invertebratepecies:both itspreset ntent nd substantiveontent eaffirmedheproperposi-tions of humans and insectswithin a hierarchical cala natura where'speakingbees' arenot admissible s real.The logic of the olfactory ramework,s well as the argumentstsproponents et forth,was intrinsicallyiedto thedeclaration f human-animal orat leasthuman-insect discontinuitynd tothenon-credibilityof nsectmind. Theeliminationf gency rom hehoneybeeworldwas partand parcel of the olfactory easoning,constituting oth a motive forseekingan alternative ccount and one of its central epistemic con-sequences.Byagency, refer o theregard f animals s wide-awake, ctiveand alerttoward thers, vents, nd objects n daily ife.36



27/38

32 Social Studies of Science 34/1The olfactoryview was formulated n the behaviorist diom ofstimulus-response: he stimulusof odor emanatingfrom the dancertriggers he honeybeesto flyto the resource.The foraging eactionofexperiencedbees was describedas a 'conditionedresponse'; first-timerecruitswereportrayeds triggeredofollow heodor emanating rom hedancer's body to the food source.This idea alone - thatbees react to astimulus ather han nterpretncodedinformation re-rankshem n the'lower-organism'ategory. ut the olfactoryiew was evenmorestringentthandowngradingn intellectual apacity o a sensory eaction.AccordingtoWenner, he bees do not conduct search singodor as a guide; Rosinunderscored hispoint,remarkingn the exclusionof any referenceo asearchfor n odor center ... to any search n a human enseat all' (1978:599, emphasis added). Indeed, an attribution f 'searching'might n-

sinuate gency insteadof following irectionsymbolicallyncoded,thebees wouldbe actively singsmell to locate a resource.But theolfactoryproponentsverred hat heflighto theresource s determinedyodor cuescarriedbythewind;honeybeesdo notuseodor as a guide,rather heodorguidesthemto the food.RecallingSearle's terminology,he olfactory erspective edrewtheline between a markproduced by 'beings with intentions'versus oneoccurring s a 'naturalphenomenon'.The olfactory ypothesis econfi-guredall movements f thehoneybees both the dance' and subsequentforaging light as unintentional henomena, thereby eaffirminghedivide between ntentional ctionand mindlessbehavior.More than notlocating ommodities hroughnterpretingymbolic igns,honeybeesweredeemedcognitivelynequippedeven to search forresourcesbymeans ofsmell.Through representationf their oragingehavior s odor-inducedand odor-determined ovement, oneybees ven ost their entience thequality of being 'responsiveto, or conscious of, sense impressions'(Webster'sinthNew Collegiate ictionary). he olfactory ypothesiswasthus farmorethan an explanation f behaviorgrounded n mechanism: taccomplished he extra-scientific'orkofavoidingmind.The eliminationfagencywas effectedhrough epresentingoneybeebehavior s passive. Stimuli, ikeinvisible, ensory-impactingtrings, etthepuppet-like ees into motion.The picture fpassivity as escalated nportrayingheir behavioras bootstrapped fromone consecutivebutdisconnectedmomentto the next - by odor cues. On the stimulus-responsemodel (S-R), honeybees xist n a perennialmoment, ropelledby mpingingtimuli o movethrough isjoinedpockets fspace.The mainanalyticalmove of S-R is to desequence' action norder o convertt ntomere movement.An experiential erspective f theanimal on its world serased- for uch a perspectivean onlybe groundedupon theexperienceof spatial continuitytructured y a temporalityf now', 'before',and'later' (Crist,2000). As previously iscussed,thesymbolic nd performa-tiveunderstandingfthe dance - signifyinghat there s somethingo befetched' assemblesa temporal nd spatialcontinuum,whichcreatesaconceptualenvironmentriendlyo ideas likeremembering,ecognizing,



28/38

Crist: Can an insect speak? 33searching, inding,nderstanding,nd evendisbelieving. ut theolfactoryhypothesis itiated he explanatoryrdescriptive owerofsuch concepts,for it replaced an activelydesignedworld that animates them withanobjectively istributedorld nhabited y quasi-automata.The effects f the olfactory nd dance-languageviews differ ro-foundly oth at the evelof their espective xplanans nd at thephenom-enological level of the worldstheyconjure to house the creatures heydescribe.The olfactory ypothesis xtinguishedgencyvia a behavioralmodel thatconstructs ees as utterly assive.The avoidance ofmind,andaffirmationf a hiatus between nsect and humanworlds,was not onlyintrinsic o the logic of S-R, but an openly operative nd motivatingassumption ftheolfactory upporters.n their1990 work,Wenner ndWellsposed a pointedquestion:

In brief, he question at issue here s: Can onereally elievehat he mallhoney eevisitingflower as anguage apability?'he same social situationthatpermitted he rise of 'NewAge' thinkingn thepublic at large hadapparently pilledover ntothebiologicalcommunity.1990: 68; empha-sis added)The impliedresponse s that one cannot really elieve such a far-fetchedproposition s an insect with language. Since there are people in thebiological communitywho apparentlyhold this unreasonable belief,Wenner ndWellsoffered cultural-ideologicalrigin or uch rrationality- 'New Age' thinking, resumablymplying he embrace of flaky, alf-baked, or romantic deas. The authors do not consider that their ownadamantrejection fa 'small'honeybeewith anguage apability as deep-seated historical rigins, ultural oots, nd ideologicalovertones.37Earlier in the same work, the existence of the dance language isportrayed s a 'rather rivial uestion'. Discussingtheirmotivesforcon-sidering he controversy, ennerand Wells appear momentarilyess in-transigentboutrejectinghe possibilityfa dance language':

This opportunityo provideraw materials for hedisciplines fphilos-ophy, sociology, nd psychology f science] strikesus as a far moreimportant ssue than theratherrivial uestion f a possibility f a 'dancelanguage' amongbees. (1990: 10; emphasis dded)The former assage mplies hat he dea ofa bee language' s implausible,whilethe atter llows for tspossibility. hile at face value thetwo viewsappear inconsistent,here s a deeper sense in whichthere s no incon-gruity etween hem for hey harea cardinal nthropocentricredo: thetacit dea of insects as a lowerformof life denotesboth hathoneybeescannothave anguage, nd that nyway,hequestionofwhether heydo istrivialn comparison o the nterestn thehumandiscourses urroundingthatquestion.Rosin also attacked hedance language on thegrounds hat tcontra-venesa clear-cut emarcation etweenhuman and insectrealms:

The controversyetween [the] ... 'language' hypothesis nd ... [the]olfactory ypothesisor hearrival fhoneybee recruits t field ources, s



29/38

34 Social Studies of Science 34/1essentially controversyetween human-level ypothesis or n insectand an insect-level ypothesis or an insect. Since a hypothesiswhichclaims human-levellanguage'for n insectupsetsthevery oundation fbehavior, nd biology n general, he burdenof proofforthe language'hypothesiss, and alwayswas, upon supporters f thathypothesis.1978:589)

The meaningsof a 'human-level ypothesis' nd 'insect-level ypothesis'are assumed to be both clear and fixed.The author proceeds to makethe burdenofprooffor 'human-level ypothesis'n endlesstask for heproponents fthe dance language. n considering arious xperimentshatshowthe bees' use ofthe dance code - to the satisfactionf the centralresearchersn thefield she contendsthatall lack the proper controls'.Rosin's grievances ppear as an instantiation f H.M. Collins' idea of'experimental egress',forthe distinct mpression s conveyedthat noexperimentould establish he dance languagebeyondall doubt, since aflawmight lwaysbe discerned n its design (see Rosin, 1978; Collins,1992 [1985]: 83ff.).The olfactory iew revalidated eliefs hatthe discovery f the dancelanguagedisturbed.t did so in a vociferousmanner. mplicitly,he S-Rmodelof theolfactory ypothesisortrayed ees as puppets n a matrix fstimulithat automatically teer them. Explicitly,with a 'let's-get-real'attitude, he olfactory upportersnsisted hatthe existenceof an insectwith anguage s less thancredible, nd a simpler xplanation or ocatingresources hould be preferred. postulate bout the plausibledistributionofcapacities n the animalworldwas not implicit utopenlydeclared;asthepassagescited earlier llustrate,t was used as an argument gainst helanguage hypothesis.Pitted against the dance language, the olfactoryhypothesis as morethana contestingetofclaims, r an alternativeet ofexperiments,bout honeybeecommunication.t maximally isjoined n-sect and human formsof life and avoided animal mind by eliminatingagency thewide-awake nd sentient resence hat nchors hepossibilityof mindfulness, nd allows questions about cognitionto arise or beposed.The paramount ole of what one can believe',when t comes to theabilities f animals and especiallynsects),was nicelydisplayedn a quotefrom ewis Carrollwithwhich he eadingresearcher f theolfactoryiewendedhis 1971 work Wenner, 971: 102):

'I can't believethat!' aid Alice.'Can't you?'theQueen said in a pityingone.'Try again:drawa long breath, nd shutyour yes'.Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying.One can't believe impossiblethings'.

ConclusionI have examinedhow behavioral cientists,rom on Frisch to contempo-raryresearchers, ave conceptualized hehoneybeedance as a linguistic



30/38

Crist: Can an insect speak? 35system.While no one claimsthat hedance languagecomesanywhere earthe complexity fhuman language,the two exhibitnon-trivial ffinities.Scientistshave understoodthe dance as rule-governed;ensitive o hiveexigencies; esponsive o environmentalonditions nd

Documents

Can an Insect Speak the Case of the Honeybee Dance Language