Chapter 11
The Friendship Signal
Why do human beings smile so much? We see smiling faces
everywhere-in offices, in shops, on the street. Are we particularly amiable
creatures? Behavioral research has shown that we are anything but. Gregarious
though he is, man is far from being a model of friendliness. This is precisely
why the human smile possesses a special function of very vital significance.
As we have already mentioned, man displays a marked aggressive
streak, especially toward his fellowmen. This aggressiveness is a true,
innate instinct with a spontaneous ability to arouse excitation and an
appetitive behavior of its own. Lorenz has studied this strange and apparently
antisocial impulse in animals, and in his book On Aggression, from which
I have already quoted, he suggests that it affords distinct benefits to
them. The aggressive drive ensures, first, that by doing battle with each
other animals distribute themselves fairly evenly across the territory
available to them – a considerable aid to the specific survival of the
species. Second, premating fights between males favor procreation by the
strongest – another asset to the species. Third, intraspecific aggression
promotes the selective breeding of sturdy defenders of the brood – an advantage
to species which practice brood tending. Fourth, the aggressive drive can
provide the motive power for other activities. And fifth, in the case of
social animals – in which it is particularly strongly developed
(original book page 121)
it leads to the formation of a ranking order which helps
the ablest individuals to assert their leadership.
On the other hand, the aggressive drive also raises a
grave problem. Since mating entails intimate association, the instinctive
tendency to remain aloof from members of the same species constitutes a
disruptive factor. Brood tending likewise presupposes close contact, and
the forming of a community becomes meaningful only when individual members
are prepared to cooperate. The aggressive drive could not, therefore, have
developed its undeniable advantages without the concomitant growth of other
norms of action and reaction which inhibit and counteract this impulse
at the biologically correct moment.
Some examples of mechanisms which neutralize the aggressive
drive were quoted in the first part of this book. Mentioned, for instance,
was the way the male dancing fly offers the female a present, thereby distracting
her attention so that copulation can take place. In many of the higher
vertebrates – including man-a partner's aversion to physical contact, which
is rooted in the aggressive drive, may be diminished by suitably childish
behavior; so that advances can take place. In the case of brood tending,
we find it a matter of course that parents should not only permit their
young to approach them but should look after them as well. Actually this
is anything but a matter of course. Brood tending requires considerable
exertion of parents and substantially curtails their other instinctive
behavior. Thus, these "friendly" reactions must also be elicited by appropriate
mechanisms. In fact, key stimuli emanating from the young animal are responsible
for promoting this behavior. In the case of turkey chicks, for instance,
it is their cheeping cries. Inability to hear these will cause the turkey
hen to kill her own young. Other key stimuli consist of physical characteristics
peculiar to young animals or of other combinations of stimuli perceivable
by parents. We have already mentioned that young human beings, too, can
elicit such reactions from adults by emitting suitable signal stimuli occasioned
by their size, their conformation, and their awkward movements. In addition,
there are the child's crying, which arouses our protective instinct, and
its smile. The strength of the latter signal should not be underestimated.
It creates a personal, binding relation-
(original book page 122)
ship between child and parents and certainly contributes
substantially to bond formation.
The special signals young animals beam at their brood
tending parents-including those of the young human being – therefore help
to inhibit aggression and elicit sympathy and goodwill. In the case of
crying and smiling (which we shall provisionally regard as associated with
laughing), other definite signal meanings come into play. Crying, for instance,
means, "I don't feel well." Smiling or laughing, on the other hand, means,
"I feel fine." Parents respond to this signal by smiling themselves, which
means, in turn, "I love you – you can rely on me." This relieves fear-born
tensions and instills confidence. In a Japanese amusement park we filmed
the facial expressions of parents watching their toddlers riding in a miniature
train. Each time a child passed a parent, its face beamed an unmistakable
signal: "Don't worry, I'm here." And: "Well done, we're proud of you."
These signals are extremely important to children during their early years
and correspond to the routine contact calls used by many other creatures,
especially birds. The regular cluck-cluck-cluck of the hen tells the chicks
that all is well and confirms her approval of the actions they perform.
In human beings the parental smile similarly bolsters the child as it embarks
on its first sorties into the uncharted territory of life.
As time passes, the child learns from experience all
the things that it can accomplish with its smile and begins to employ it
deliberately. This habit persists throughout life, like the dual significance
of the smile itself. On the one hand, it courts sympathy and demands "Love
me." On the other, it possesses a hortatory significance and says, "I love
you – come to me. Rely on me-you can trust me." Both meanings acquire still
further force during courtship. One partner smiles at the other seeking
to make himself (or herself) as attractive as possible – in other words,
to stimulate the other's senses. Again, the smile also signifies: "You
may approach me – don't be afraid, you attract me." In everyday community
life the smile has become a universal greeting which, like other forms
of salutation, has degenerated into a routine cliché. We are brought
up to be polite, and everyone learns from personal experience
(original book page 123)
that more can be gotten out of people with smiles and
friendly greetings. The occasional intolerance and irascibility of others
may be somewhat neutralized by this means. Anyone who omits to smile and
greet people for only a few days, whether at work or in private life, will
find himself encountering considerable resentment. The fact that even a
routine smile still retains its effect is demonstrated with particular
clarity by the elicitive function of this signal. The politician who addresses
a group of voters or allows himself to be photographed always smiles because
he knows that he will ingratiate himself more effectively. The shrewd Chinese
have made "Smile at all costs" a universal axiom, and in the United States
an entire nation has developed the habit of donning ritualized, magazine-cover-type
smiles on every conceivable occasion. A more accurate explanation of why
human beings smile so often might well be that we smile because we are
not, basically, unfriendly creatures. Thus our smile is a means of eliciting
contact readiness in others and of conveying our own accessibility to contact.
If we use it as a social bridge builder, we do so not merely because of
upbringing or mood, but from sheer necessity.
The large significance of this small signal becomes doubly
plain to us whenever we approached native villages in remote parts of Africa.
Whenever we were confronted by immobile, inscrutable faces, we knew things
could go one way or the other. The suspicious or surly face is an unmistakable
warning which arouses uneasiness in the person approaching – not only because
of past experience but because of an innate recognitive reaction situated
far deeper within us. Let the corners of the mouth curve upward and the
first smile dawn, however, and the situation is instantly transformed.
Without a single word or gesture, the wearer of the smile conveys that
he may be approached and is prepared to greet one in friendly fashion.
In our case, whenever we entered a strange village, established contact,
and tried to communicate verbally, smiles flew back and forth as a sort
of permanent guarantee that we were mutually well disposed – precisely
the same guarantee which the growing child requires from its parents.
How did this very important facial signal originate evolutionarily,
and what primordial movement underlies it?
(original book page 124)
Similar friendship-eliciting signals abound in the animal
world. Often they originated in movements which already denoted a friendly
basic attitude. Among mammals, for instance, it is common for the mother
to clean and comb the fur of her young. Because such skin tending is always
an expression of a friendly basic attitude, adult animals also clean each
other to create a mutually friendly mood. Movements of this kind develop
into a form of greeting, as when the dog welcomes us by licking our hand.
Among various monkeys (macaques, makis) similar greeting movements have
become even more ritualized. When in a friendly mood, these creatures lick
each other and comb each other's fur with their teeth; when greeting each
other they perform analogous movements in the air (and chatter at the same
time). In other words, they "lick" and "comb" in the direction of those
being greeted.
It is also logical that an animal should conceal its
own aggression-eliciting characteristics or "weapons" from a potential
adversary, if only to allay aggression in others. For example, the laughing
gull's conspicuous black head marking provokes aggression in members of
its own species. This is why, in the mating ceremony, it averts its head
from its partner in a strange form of friendship signal. Storks also swivel
their heads in greeting, averting their beaks from the object of their
salutation and at the same time rattling them.
Perhaps the strangest source of development of greeting
movements is the redirection of hostile behavior. Horses greet each other
by opening their muzzles and baring their teeth – a procedure almost identical
with the one which hey perform as a warning. The sole difference is that
the horse pricks its ears in greeting and lays them back flat when in a
minatory mood. Lorenz succeeded in ascertaining how such redirections came
about and what deeper significance they possess.
The pattern is as follows: Individual A creates a friendship
bond with Individual B by threatening Individual C. The forming of a common
front against a third party promotes an alliance or pact of friendship
of the sort concluded by human beings under similar circumstances. Lorenz
was able to trace in cichlids and greylag geese how the bond-forming process
has led to a ritualized form of aggression inhibition. A minatory
(original book page 125)
movement initially directed at a mate becomes, by redirection,
a threat directed past the mate at a third party (or any other suitable
target), and this leads to the forming of the bond. The movement then becomes
– to quote Lorenz – "a ritually autonomous appeasement ceremony"; it becomes
"an end in itself" indeed, "a necessity." It is important that each of
the two partners can perform the ceremony only with the other individual
in question. In practical terms, then, this greeting consists in the first
individual's directing a threat movement past the person of the second.
Lorenz holds that the human smile came into being in
an analogous way, as a redirected baring of the teeth at a third party.
In his view, laughing and smiling are simply varying grades of intensity
of the same behavior pattern – "that is, they respond with different thresholds
to the same particular quality of excitation." As a special argument he
cites the fact that many Japanese look past each other when exchanging
broad smiles. Thus, Lorenz construes the smile of greeting as an appeasement
ceremony "which, like the triumph ceremony of geese, has evolved through
ritualization of a redirected threat."
Eibl defined his approach to this subject in Handbuch
der Biologie. To him, smiles and laughter have "a common root but seem
to have become ritualized in different ways." The smile often turns into
laughter, which may thus be interpreted as smiling of a higher intensity
– "but not only as such." Other factors are involved – for example, laughter
is characterized by an open mouth and the rhythmical emission of sounds.
Darwin, who dealt with the same facial expression, took
the view that laughter was originally a manifestation of sheer joy or pure
happiness. He noted the frequency with which imbeciles and mental deficients
smile, and this strengthened him in his belief. In most cases, it was impossible
for their happy excitation to be associated with a specific idea: They
simply felt pleasure and expressed it by laughing and smiling. Thus, Darwin
reasoned, laughter was either a more fully developed smile or – more probably
– a smile was the last vestige of a habit of laughter which had become
firmly rooted in the course of many generations. Darwin found it "an obscure
point," or not important, that the corners of the mouth should retract,
raising
(original book page 126)
the upper lip. His conjecture was that the movement originated
in the need to open the mouth as widely as possible in order to emit a
"full and abundant" sound.
In one of our television films I tried to present the
smile as a redirected threat, as Lorenz interpreted it to be. However,
the more I analyzed our film, the more unlikely this interpretation seemed.
None of the sequences of people smiling (or laughing) at others conveyed
the least suggestion of "indirect tooth baring" – in other words, of redirection.
Instead, they seemed to support Darwin's theory that smiles and laughter
were originally both related manifestations of a happy mood. Although Darwin
never noted the smile's function as an aggression buffer, this interpretation
can also be made to conform with his view. The smile-directed at another
person-would then mean, "I'm happy to see you." And it could also mean,
"Don't be afraid to approach me." Since smiling and laughing exert a mood-transmissive
effect, they were able to induce a better humor and greater accessibility
to contact in other people as well.
The more I compared laughter and smiling, however, the
more clearly the two phenomena diverged. Smiling invariably contains an
element of entreaty, friendliness, and appeasement, but always a latent
"I am good to you." Laughter, however, invariably has something aggressive
about it-often something mocking and contemptuous. Thus let us consider
a few arguments to support the contention that these two signals are totally
different, both in significance and origin.
First, laughter. What excites this reaction in the most
rudimentary instances? Something laughable, of course. But what strikes
us as laughable? We are often impelled to laugh by the spectacle of others'
misfortunes and the agreeable realization that we have been spared the
thing that has befallen them. Laughter and mockery are closely related,
and this brings us back to the situation in which two or more individuals
deride others of their kind – a circumstance which Lorenz quite rightly
regards as a symptom of aggression and, at the same time, an aid to bond
formation. Joint derision is related to the expulsion reaction commonly
observed in animals, which is usually elicited by malformation or, in more
general terms, by the quality of I being different, physically or behaviorally,
from the group.
(original book page 127)
The result of this reaction is that the outsider is not
only expelled but in certain circumstances killed. The directing of concerted
threats at an enemy is called hating. In primates, this behavior is accompanied
by a rhythmical emission of sounds strongly reminiscent of human laughter.
On the one hand, therefore, such procedures lead to the forming of united
fronts, and on the other, they afford an opportunity of working off pent-up
aggression on a specific object which can thus become a surrogate.
I was nevertheless impressed, while watching our films
of people laughing, by the extent to which this signal beautifies any face
and enlists fellow feeling. I filmed a Chinese market woman during an outburst
of fury and again, ten minutes later, while smiling. In the first instance
her face was repellent; in the second – although she was no beauty – positively
attractive.
If we regard laughing and smiling as two distinct phenomena,
it is clear that each occurs in every conceivable grade of intensity. In
light laughter the rhythmical emission of sound is reduced to silent expulsions
of breath occurring in rapid succession or may consist of only one such
exhalation or a suggestion of the same. With a smirk there is no expulsion
of breath at all, and the lips are only slightly retracted – yet even this
is not the same as smiling. Smiling, in turn, may attain an intensity verging
on rapture without turning into laughter – in other words, without the
emission of sounds.
The two signals are alike in possessing a strongly infectious
quality. With the smile, this is inherent to its placatory function. Laughter
is known to be particularly infectious, but its effect is usually limited
to a group. An outsider may often be induced to join in a smile, but laughter
within a closed group is more likely to excite an outsider's annoyance,
especially if he is ignorant of its cause, because he assumes it to be
directed at himself.
This is where the basic functional difference between
laughter and smiling becomes particularly apparent. If we encounter a stranger
and laugh at him on sight, he will probably interpret it as a sign of derision
and disparagement rather than as a greeting. If we smile at him, all misunderstanding
is precluded. There is nothing aggressive about the smile. It says clearly,
"I
(original book page 128)
am pleased to see you" and beyond that, "I am prepared
to welcome and possibly assist you."
The behavior of persons taking leave of one another is
very informative in this respect. Here the smile becomes a sort of summary
of the encounter and says, "I am still well disposed toward you and shall
continue to greet you in a friendly fashion." If leave takers have laughed
heartily while together, the summary may well contain an echo of that laughter.
The persons concerned may even slap each other laughingly on the back,
as if to say, "We had some good laughs together." If no laughter has occurred
during an encounter, a parting laugh has the very obvious effect of insulting
and disparaging the other party.
When people who have laughed heartily together during
a previous encounter meet again, laughter may become a form of greeting.
Laughter here becomes a reminder of an earlier meeting-of a bond which
was cemented by joint laughter. Unconstrained laughter is a widespread
greeting, especially among young people. In full accord with the Lorenzian
interpretation, it then represents an allusion to a pact which has already
been concluded.
Furthermore, though obviously as a secondary function,
laughter has become an outlet for excitation. The English philosopher Herbert
Spencer pointed out as early as 1863 that energy which is obstructed in
its flow can take another direction and erupt in the form of laughter.
In modern terminology, this would be called displacement laughter, though
it is not certain whether the energy born of different motivation actually
"jumps the tracks" or merely initiates the movement. Whatever the truth,
this is the origin of embarrassed, nervous, hysterical, or even angry laughter.
No further illustration is needed of how difficult it is to distinguish
between the two signals and why we are prone to regard them as different
rungs of the same ladder. Of course a smile can also be embarrassed, shamefaced,
or nervous. In this case, the friendship signal is superimposed upon the
expression of fear or shame appropriate to the circumstances or, alternatively,
is associated with signs of excitation.
Laughter's supplementary function as a means of discharging
(original book page 129)
excitation may also explain why the mentally disturbed
so often indulge in it. Their much-frustrated instincts find laughter to
be an outlet, so their laughter is not the primitive sign of happiness
assumed by Darwin. Normal laughter expressive of good humor can also be
construed as a product of happy excitation in general, so it would then
be an expression of a secondary rather than of the original function. The
frequent transition from smiling to laughter may be explained in the same
way. This can be described as displacement laughter which gives expression
to the happy excitation of reunion.
Finally, as for Japanese looking past one another when
smiling broadly, a more logical explanation of such behavior lies in the
fact that courtesy is normally exaggerated among the Japanese, a fact which
manifests itself in highly refined movements of the face and head. As we
have already mentioned, a fixed stare inspires fear and provokes resistance;
it is a form of behavior which precedes attack. If the stare is combined
with a smile its effect is normally neutralized and our uneasiness abates.
The Japanese evidently prefer to rule out even this suggestion of potential
uneasiness, so they either look past other people when conversing with
them or gaze at the ground. This is certainly not a relic of erstwhile
aggression, especially in a race whose manners are so strongly influenced
by tradition. Rather, it is one of the numerous conventions which make
it so difficult for the European to understand the Oriental.
If laughter and smiling are, in fact, different signals,
how did smiling really originate? From what primordial movements was it
ritualized?
Darwin pointed out in his principle of antithesis that
expressive movements may also be explained by the fact that they are of
a directly opposite nature to another expressive movement. For example,
if the head is shaken from side to side on the basis of a primordial movement
to convey no, there can be no clearer affirmative signal than the contrary
movement in other words, a nod.
Darwin specifically demonstrated this principle by the
example of the expressive movements of the dog and cat. When a German shepherd
approaches with hostile intent, it walks stiffly with head raised. The
tail is also held erect and quite
(original book page 130)
rigid, the hairs on back and neck bristle, the ears are
directed forward, and the gaze is fixed. When the same dog approaches its
master, the head is lowered, the body tends to grovel and squirm, the tail
is lowered and wagged, the ears are drawn back, and the eyes lose their
fixed stare. The cat, on the other hand, crouches and prepares to pounce
when in a hostile mood. The tail is fully extended and thrashes laterally
to and fro, the ears are flattened, and the jaws part to emit a hiss or
growl. When caressing its master, the animal adopts an exaggeratedly upright
stance, its back slightly arched, its tail rigid and vertical, its ears
erect and pricked. It keeps its mouth closed and purrs. In each case the
aggressive stance is undoubtedly the original one, and each individual
symptom of mood possesses a biological import of its own. The symptoms
of the opposite mood – of friendliness and accessibility to contact – are
simply the contrary of the first set. They have no special meaning for
the most part, merely the function of looking as dissimilar from their
counterparts as possible.
This principle makes it possible to construe smiling
as the antithesis of the human facial expression which conveys ill humor.
This has four main features: compressed lips, a mouth drawn downward at
the corners, vertical furrows in the forehead, and a slight jutting of
the lips. Compressed lips are a symptom of tension, determination, and
obstinacy. The downturned corners of the mouth are probably attributable
to a muscular movement suppressive of cries or weeping. The vertical furrows
in the forehead also express tension, and the jutting lips are a very ancient
signal of which the chimpanzee provides a clear demonstration when angry.
On such occasions it extends its lips like a tube, a movement observable
in human beings among stubborn children, especially those of primitive
tribes. All these characteristics are expressive of rage, ill temper, annoyance,
and sullen obstinacy – in other words, of a mood diametrically opposed
to the approachable. If one wished to devise a signal which clearly expressed
a friendly and accommodating attitude, it would take the following form:
a smooth brow, a relaxed and open mouth, and retracted lips drawn upward
at the corners – all of them characteristics of the human smile.
In our primitive forebears' communities it must have
been
(original book page 131)
extremely important to a child to know when it was permissible
or inadvisable to approach an adult. The same applied equally to adults
encountering strangers. The angry, ill-tempered, or sick individual could
be dangerous if approached too closely by those who encroached on his private
territory. In this context, it was extremely important for man to develop
an innate recognition mechanism which would give him suitable warning on
sighting such a face. It was just as important for man to develop an appropriate
signal for the contrary mood – a sign of approachability. And this, as
we have seen, became further strengthened into a means of inhibiting aggression
and actively enlisting fellow feeling.
Within the framework of the social orders created by
mana subject which we shall be discussing in the next chapter – the human
being succeeded in erecting invisible barriers between himself and other
members of his species. Particularly where a community waxed in numbers
and a strict ranking order grew up, there arose barriers of convention
which often became so rigid in the course of history that it was virtually
impossible to penetrate them. Although the caste and class systems have
relaxed in our modern society, rigid divisions still exist. We can ask
another man for the time or some other piece of information, we can beg
a light or some other small favor, but these are no more than temporary
gaps in a wall which does not really crumble until we are linked – or introduced
– by a suitable third party.
The smile has always been an arrow which pierced these
invisible barriers. We owe our present position of supremacy to cooperation,
and the smile has fulfilled the important function of bringing us aggressive
creatures closer together. By smiling – whether the smile be genuine or
assumed – we ingratiate ourselves with other people and bind them to us.
The intricate network of human civilization can be said to owe its cohesion
to a myriad-and-one such smiles.