Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-g4pgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T09:20:22.452Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multi-species societies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2025

Kristin Andrews Open the ORCID record for Kristin Andrews [Opens in a new window] ,
Christopher Kelty  and
Kulbhushansingh Suryawanshi
Kristin Andrews*
Affiliation:
CIFAR Fellow in Future Flourishing Program, MaRS Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada Department of Philosophy, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada andrewsk@yorku.ca; www.kristinandrews.org
Christopher Kelty
Affiliation:
CIFAR Fellow in Future Flourishing Program, MaRS Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada Department of Anthropology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA ckelty@ucla.edu; https://socgen.ucla.edu/people/christopher-kelty
Kulbhushansingh Suryawanshi
Affiliation:
CIFAR Fellow in Future Flourishing Program, MaRS Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysore, India kulbhushan@ncf-india.org; https://www.kulbhushansingh.com Snow Leopard Trust, Seattle, WA, USA
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research in community ecology, anthropology, and ethnoprimatology has identified mixed-species animal groups, and we argue that Moffett's definition of society allows these groups to qualify as societies. The existence of mixed-species society has two implications – that societies are structured by social norms, and that it may be more common to belong to multiple societies than Moffett suggests.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 48 , 2025 , e52
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andrews, K., Fitzpatrick, S., & Westra, E. (2024). Human and nonhuman norms: A dimensional framework. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 379(1897), 20230026. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2023.0026CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cormier, L. A. (2003). Kinship with monkeys: The Guajá foragers of Eastern Amazonia. Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cram, D. L., van der Wal, J. E. M., Uomini, N., Cantor, M., Afan, A. I., Attwood, M. C., … Spottiswoode, C. N. (2022). The ecology and evolution of human-wildlife cooperation. People and Nature, 4(4), 841–855. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogg, B. R., Howe, N., & Pierotti, R. (2015). Relationships between indigenous American peoples and wolves 1: Wolves as teachers and guides. Journal of Ethnobiology, 35(2), 262–285. https://doi.org/10.2993/etbi-35-02-262-285.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuentes, A. (2012). Ethnoprimatology and the anthropology of the human-primate interface*. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41(Volume 41, 2012), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gompper, M. E. (2014). Free-ranging dogs and wildlife conservation. OUP Oxford.Google Scholar
Goodale, E., Sridhar, H., Sieving, K. E., Bangal, P., Colorado, Z. G. J., Farine, D. R., … Shanker, K. (2020). Mixed company: A framework for understanding the composition and organization of mixed-species animal groups. Biological Reviews, 95(4), 889–910. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Govindrajan, R. (2018). Animal intimacies: Interspecies relatedness in India's Central Himalayas. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226560045Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussain, S. T., Weiss, M., & Kellberg Nielsen, T. (2022). Being-with other predators: Cultural negotiations of Neanderthal-carnivore relationships in Late Pleistocene Europe. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 66, 101409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2022.101409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Martínez, A. E., & Gomez, J. P. (2013). Are mixed-species bird flocks stable through two decades? The American Naturalist, 181(3), E53–E59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morton, J. M. (2014). Cultural code-switching: Straddling the achievement gap. Journal of Political Philosophy, 22(3), 259–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagasawa, M., Kikusui, T., Onaka, T., & Ohta, M. (2009). Dog's gaze at its owner increases owner's urinary oxytocin during social interaction. Hormones and Behavior, 55(3), 434–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008.12.002Google ScholarPubMed
Shell, J. (2019). Giants of the monsoon forest: Living and working with elephants. W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Spottiswoode, C. N., & Wood, B. M. (2023). Culturally determined interspecies communication between humans and honeyguides. Science, 382(6675), 1155–1158. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh4129CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Srinivasan, U. (2019). Morphological and behavioral correlates of long-term bird survival in selectively logged forest. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 17. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westra, E., Fitzpatrick, S., Brosnan, S. F., Gruber, T., Hobaiter, C., Hopper, L. M., … Andrews, K. (2024). In search of animal normativity: A framework for studying social norms in non-human animals. Biological Reviews, 99(3), 1058–1074. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.13056Google ScholarPubMed