The study of behavior in ethology is carried out on the basis of a structural-dynamic approach. The most important sections of ethology are:
- morphology of behavior — description and analysis of elements of behavior (poses and movements);
- functional analysis — analysis of external and internal factors of behavior;
- comparative studies — evolutionary genetic analysis of behavior [Deryagina, Butovskaya, 1992, p. 6].
Within the framework of the systems approach, behavior is defined as a system of interrelated components that provides an integrated optimal response of the body when interacting with the environment; it is a process that takes place in a certain period of time [Deryagina, Butovskaya 1992, p.7]. The components of the system are the «external» motor reactions of the body that occur in response to a change in the environment. The object of ethological research is both instinctive forms of behavior and those associated with long-term learning processes (social traditions, tool activity, non-ritual forms of communication).
The modern analysis of behavior is based on the following principles: 1) hierarchy; 2) dynamism; 3) quantitative accounting; 4) a systematic approach, taking into account that the forms of behavior are closely interconnected.
Behavior is organized hierarchically (Tinbergen, 1942). In the system of behavior, therefore, different levels of integration are distinguished:
- elementary motor acts;
- posture and movement;
- sequences of interrelated postures and movements;
- ensembles represented by complexes of action chains;
- functional spheres are complexes of ensembles associated with a specific type of activity [Panov, 1978].
The central property of a behavioral system is the orderly interaction of its components to achieve the ultimate goal. The relationship is provided through chains of transitions between elements and can be considered as a specific ethological mechanism for the functioning of this system [Deryagina, Butovskaya, 1992, p. nine].
The basic concepts and methods of human ethology are borrowed from animal ethology, but they are adapted to reflect the unique position of man among other members of the animal kingdom. An important feature of ethology, in contrast to cultural anthropology, is the use of methods of direct non-participant observation (although methods of participant observation are also used). Observations are organized in such a way that the observed does not suspect about it, or has no idea about the purpose of the observations. The traditional object of study of ethologists is the behavior inherent in man as a species. Human ethology pays special attention to the analysis of universal manifestations of non-verbal behavior. The second aspect of research is the analysis of models of social behavior (aggression, altruism, social dominance, parental behavior).
An interesting question is about the boundaries of individual and cultural variability of behavior. Behavioral observations can also be made in the laboratory. But in this case, most of all, we are talking about applied ethology (the use of ethological methods in psychiatry, in psychotherapy, or for experimental testing of a specific hypothesis). [Samokhvalov et al., 1990; Cashdan, 1998; Grummer et al, 1998].
If initially human ethology focused on questions about how and to what extent human actions and actions are programmed, which led to the opposition of phylogenetic adaptations to the processes of individual learning, now attention is paid to the study of behavior patterns in different cultures (and subcultures), the analysis of processes formation of behavior in the process of individual development. Thus, at the present stage, this science studies not only behavior that has a phylogenetic origin, but also takes into account how behavioral universals can be transformed within a culture. The latter circumstance contributed to the development of close cooperation between ethologists and art historians, architects, historians, sociologists, and psychologists. As a result of such cooperation, it has been shown that unique ethological data can be obtained through a thorough analysis of historical materials: chronicles, epics, chronicles, literature, press, painting, architecture, and other art objects [Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989; Dunbar et al, 1; Dunbar and Spoors 1995].
Levels of social complexity
In modern ethology, it is considered obvious that the behavior of individual individuals in social animals and humans largely depends on the social context (Hinde, 1990). Social influence is complex. Therefore, R. Hinde [Hinde, 1987] proposed to single out several levels of social complexity. In addition to the individual, the level of social interactions, relationships, the level of the group and the level of society are distinguished. All levels have a mutual influence on each other and develop under the constant influence of the physical environment and culture. It should be clearly understood that the patterns of functioning of behavior at a more complex social level cannot be reduced to the sum of manifestations of behavior at a lower level of organization [Hinde, 1987]. A separate additional concept is required to explain the behavioral phenomenon at each level. Thus, aggressive interactions between siblings are analyzed in terms of the immediate stimuli underlying this behavior, while the aggressive nature of relationships between siblings can be viewed from the point of view of the concept of «sibling competition».
The behavior of an individual in the framework of this approach is considered as a consequence of his interaction with other members of the group. It is assumed that each of the interacting individuals has certain ideas about the probable behavior of the partner in this situation. An individual receives the necessary representations on the basis of previous experience of communication with other representatives of its species. Contacts of two unfamiliar individuals, which are distinctly hostile in nature, are often limited to only a series of demonstrations. Such communication is enough for one of the partners to admit defeat and demonstrate submission. If specific individuals interacted many times, then certain relationships arise between them, which are carried out against the general background of social contacts. The social environment for both humans and animals is a kind of shell that surrounds individuals and transforms the impact of the physical environment on them. Sociality in animals can be seen as a universal adaptation to the environment. The more complex and flexible the social organization, the greater the role it plays in protecting individuals of a given species. The plasticity of social organization could serve as a basic adaptation of our common ancestors with chimpanzees and bonobos, which provided the initial prerequisites for hominization [Butovskaya and Fainberg, 1993].
The most important problem of modern ethology is the search for reasons why the social systems of animals and humans are always structured, and most often according to a hierarchical principle. The real role of the concept of dominance in understanding the essence of social connections in society is constantly being discussed [Bernstein, 1981]. Networks of relationships between individuals are described in animals and humans in terms of kinship and reproductive ties, systems of dominance, and individual selectivity. They may overlap (for example, rank, kinship, and reproductive relationships), but they can also exist independently of each other (for example, networks of adolescent relationships in the family and school with peers in modern human society).
Of course, direct parallels should be used with all caution in the comparative analysis of the behavior of animals and humans, because all levels of social complexity influence each other. Many types of human activity are specific and symbolic in nature, which can be understood only by having knowledge of the social experience of a given individual and the characteristics of the socio-cultural structure of society [Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989]. social organization is the unification of methods for assessing and describing the behavior of primates, including humans, which makes it possible to objectively assess the basic parameters of similarity and difference. R. Hind’s scheme allows to eliminate the main misunderstandings between representatives of the biological and social sciences regarding the possibilities of a comparative analysis of human and animal behavior and to predict at what levels of organization one can look for real similarities.