I have no opinion of my own about whether or not Haim Ramon merely acceded the courting of the young woman, or despicably took advantage of her weakness.
Neither do I wish to contribute to the debate on the nature and fate of courting following the rise of laws against sexual harassment.
I want to ask a completely different question; How can a man and woman not recognize indisputable flirting? What happened to evolution? Why did it not equip us with tools to instantly identify flirting?
At first glance, this question looks completely idiotic. Part of the beauty and grace of flirting is the fascinating and creative game played in an ambiguous court. Yet, how do we explain evolution making sure us humans could recognize other emotions so quickly, but not flirting?
Every emotion has its own body language
Excluding rare cases, we can recognize without any particular difficulty emotions such as sorrow, happiness, surprise, and fear. That’s because each emotion has its own body language.
According to Charles Darwin, bodily codes of emotion are evolutionary and universal, and therefore transmit clear messages. Yet here we are, having difficulty recognizing the one emotion which could prove to be destructive, or even fatal.
Why can’t I discern straight away and without question whether the woman dancing around me is indeed after me or just interested in what I have to say about the Jewish dilemma.
Evolution couldn’t have fallen asleep on the job. It didn’t fail other species. Courtship in nature is explicit and unmistakable. The peacock’s display of its plumage is just one example.
Obvious signs of flirting? (Photo: Visual Photos)
In the book “Ethics, Emotions, and Aminals” by Ze’ev and Nadav Levi (2002), many other fascinating animal flirt stories are told.
For instance, in one particular species of bird, the male courts the female by building an attractive nest, and the female picks the male that managed to impress her most with his decoration of the nest.
The decoration of the nest automatically gives away the male’s intentions, since the male only builds a nest for the purpose of courting, and directly after mating, both he and the female abandon the nest.
In other words, man has failed where birds haven’t. If they were birds, the complainant and Haim Ramon couldn’t claim to have misunderstood each other. Is it possible that human evolution could have failed in such a fundamental component of human relationships?
Evolution did an okay job
As it turns out, evolution actually did an okay job. In the first chapter of her book “Anatomy of Love”, anthropologist Helen Fisher describes the universal and multicultural body language of men and women in times of flirting.
Among other things, she addresses different types of smiles, raised eyebrows, wide opened eyes, sideway glances, and certain head movements. In Fisher’s opinion, all of those things convey the desire to flirt.
In most cultures for instance, women send shy looks or play with their hair, while men’s flirting culture relies on dominant expressions and arched backs.
Which smile did Ramon see?
According to a summary of the first two chapters of Fisher’s book written by Erin Murray, Kyle Rasmussen, and James Pittman, humans have “at least eighteen distinctive types of smiles, only some of which we use while courting”.
The “simple smile” is expressed generally as an ordinary acknowledgment characterized by the closed mouth and tight lips. The “upper smile,” which bares the top teeth, indicates a higher degree of interest.
Full exposure of both the top and bottom teeth is known as the “open smile” and generally signifies the highest degree of interest in flirting. In contrast, the “nervous social smile,” characterized by clenched teeth, is typically a negative expression in courtship.
Also according to the summary, Fisher further examined the concept of the universality of courting cues and refers to Darwin’s theory that “joy, sorrow, happiness, surprise, fear, and many other human feelings were expressed in panhuman gestural patterns inherited from a common evolutionary past”.
As an example, Fisher notes that the smile is a natural expression that is not learned by imitation since babies born blind display the same inclination to grin as do babies born with sight. Fisher suggests that all such expressions and gestures probably evolved as a means of attracting a future mate.
So which smile did Ramon see? The “open smile”, the “nervous social smile”, or one of the 16 other smiles? Maybe he saw a smile of admiration, or friendship, and translated it to an “open smile”. Where, if anywhere, did he go wrong?
- Avinoam Ben-Ze’ev is a philosopher and author who specializes, among other things, in the issue of dilemma’s, emotions, and prejudice. He can be contacted through email, but unfortunately, individual replies cannot be promised.