Acampora Extinction by Exhibition, Teksty filozofia
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
//-->Research in Human EcologyExtinction by Exhibition: Looking at and in the ZooRalph R. AcamporaUnity CollegeQuaker Hill RoadUnity, Maine 04988USAAbstractThis paper compares the phenomenological structure ofzoological exhibition to the pattern prevalent in pornography.It examines several disanalogies between the two, finds themlacking or irrelevant, and concludes that the proposed anal-ogy is strong enough to serve as a critical lens through whichto view the institution of zoos. The central idea uncovered inthis process of interpretation is paradoxical: zoos are porno-graphic in that they make the nature of their subjects disap-pear precisely by overexposing them. Since the keep are thusdegraded or marginalized through the marketing of their veryvisibility, the pretense of preservation is criticized. It is sug-gested that the zoo as we know it be phased out in favor ofmore authentic modes of encountering other forms of life.Keywords:zoos, pornography, captive animals, wild-ness, exhibition, inter-species ethics, conservation, biophiliaSecond Nature poses more problems for us more acutely thanever before because we have come to realize at once theextent of our dependence upon it and the extent to which ourdemands could be deadly.(Schwartz 1996, 173)Throughout its past the zoo has demonstrated a relation-al dynamic of mastery. Originally, in its days as a private gar-den, it was a powerful symbol of dominion, projecting animperial image of man-the-monarch — ruler of nature, lordof the wild. Eventually, it was converted into a publicmenagerie and became a ritual of entertainment, projectingan almost trickster imagery of man-the-magician — tamer ofbrutes, conjurer of captives. The contemporary zoo hasbecome a scientific park and aesthetic site, and its meaning isredemptive; it stands as an emblem of conservation policy,projecting a religious image of man-the-messiah — the newNoah: savior of species, the beasts’ benign despot. Fromempire to circus to museum or ark, the zoo has been orga-nized according to anthropocentrist and arguably androcen-trist hierarchies and designs (Mullan and Marvin 1987).Historically marked by patterns of paternalism andtraces of patriarchy, zoological institutions are now justifiedby appeal to their allegedly saving graces. Zoos are legit-Human Ecology Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1998© Society for Human Ecologyimized as havens of wildlife protection, vessels for the rescueof an animal kingdom under attack from industrial civiliza-tion. Following John Berger (1977), I argue that this self-promotion is an ideology caught in paradox — for the veryexposition established by zoos erases the most manifestly“natural” traits of what were once wild beings, namely theircapacities either to elude or engage others freely. (Such anerasure occurs even if one eschews a classical doctrine of nat-ural kinds. My argument depends not on immutable essencesof species as such, but rather on received meanings of wild-ness for any animal at all.) Thus this exhibitionism extin-guishes for us the existential reality of those animals even asit proclaims to preserve their biological existence. Even theastute zoo apologist, Emily Hahn, admits that “the wild ani-mal in conditions of captivity ... is bound to alter in natureand cease being the creature we want to see” (1967, 16).Berger elaborates the irony thus: despite the ostensible pur-pose of the place, “nowhere in a zoo can a stranger encounterthe look of an animal ... At most the animal’s gaze flickersand passes on ... They look sideways ... They look blindlybeyond ... They scan mechanically” (1977, 26).Since it effectively forces its show-items into an overex-posure that degrades their real nature, the zoo can be seen topartake in the paradoxical form of pornography — conceivednot as something sexy, but as an institution of visive violence.Hence “the zoo to which people go to meet animals, toobserve them, to see them, is in fact a monument to theimpossibility of such encounters” (Berger 1977, 19). Herepossible parallels with gender analyses of the pornographicmay be intimated poignantly by substituting “strip-bar ... men... women” for “zoo ... people ... animals” (Kappeler 1986,75-76).The broad analogy between zoos and pornography isuseful because, if it holds true in the relevant respects (as Ithink it does), then the comparison casts a new and decided-ly critical light on the debate over keeping and breeding wildanimals in captivity. As an illustration, consider the contro-versy over pornography. There are several conceivabledefenses of pornography, but imagine for a moment an apol-ogist taking the position that we should permit — indeed pro-mote — the institution because it excites or inspires us (par-ticularly the young) to esteem the subjects displayed, because1Acamporait “educates” us to look out for the welfare of those soexposed. The centerfold, in other words, would be seen as anicon of compassion and respect! All that need be done nowis to discover why so many of us accept the same sort of rea-soning when it is presented on behalf of zoological exhibi-tion. Surely there are relevant disanalogies that would war-rant the different reactions — or are there?First, we might be tempted to think that zoos are trulyeducational — in a way that pornography (at least typically)is not. But this alleged difference does not hold up underscrutiny. We have to ask tough questions, such as thoseframed by Paul Shepard: “The zoo presents itself as a placeof education. But to what end? To give people a respect forwildness, a sense of human limitations and of biologicalcommunity, a world of mutual dependency?” (1996, 233).No, we have to answer, zoos either teach poorly or instillfalse and dangerous lessons all too well. One environmentalresearcher found that “zoo goers [are] much less knowledge-able about animals than backpackers, hunters, fishermen, andothers who claim an interest in animals, and only slightlymore knowledgeable than those who claim no interest in ani-mals at all” (Kellert 1979). Nearly twenty years later, his ver-dict is still dismal: “the typical visitor appears only marginal-ly more appreciative, better informed, or engaged in the nat-ural world following the experience.” In reply to Shepard’squestion, he finds that “many visitors leave the zoo more con-vinced than ever of human superiority over the natural world”(Kellert 1997, 99).There are several unsurprising reasons for these abysmalfindings regarding the educational value of zoos: the publicis largely indifferent to zoo education efforts (few stop evento look at, let alone read, explanatory placards); animals areviewed briefly and in rapid succession; people tend to con-centrate on so-called babies and beggars — their cute coun-tenances and funny antics capture audience attention(Ludwig 1981). Of course, this sort of amusement is at theheart of what a zoo is (scientific ideologies of self-promotionnotwithstanding). Consequently, and insidiously, what visitsto the zoo instruct and reinforce over and over again is thesubliminal message that nonhuman animals are here in orderto entertain us humans. Even when, during our deludedmoments of enlightenment, we insist that they are here ratherto edify — even then their presence is still essentiallyassignedto or for us.Thus the phenomenological grammarof their appearance precludes the possibility of full othernessarising; this is what it means to put and keep a live body ondisplay (a structural inauthenticity that remains despite thebest intentions of humanitarian/ecologic pedagogy).If this again sounds too pornographic, perhaps we canwash away the association by discovering the relevant dis-analogy elsewhere. Undoubtedly, someone will think that thelikeness I allege is strained on account of the obvious differ-ence in attraction — erotic versus biotic entertainment. HereI must give some ground, for it is not the average zoo visitorwho actually desires a romp with the rhino. I grant that bes-tiality is not part of the ordinary dynamic of zoo visitation(although it can be seen as an indirect ingredient, as in PeterGreenaway’s 1988 film,Z00).Nevertheless, I maintain thatthe analogy even here holds strong enough to warrant itsvalidity. The aesthetics of the zoo are not, I believe, farremoved from that of pornography. We find in both casesfetishes of the exotic, underlying fear of nature, fantasies ofillicit or impossible encounter, and a powerful presumptionof mastery and control (Griffin, 1981). Given these similari-ties, I do not think it at all unbelievable to claim that zooinhabitants and porn participants are very much alike in thisrespect — they are visual objects whose meaning is shapedpredominantly by the perversions of a patriarchal gaze(Adams 1994, 23-84, esp. 39-54).At this point some of the impatient among us, unsettledif not outright disturbed by the parallels, may be tempted torescue the respectability of both institutions at once bywielding the double-edged sword of freedom. Pornographyitself is not so bad, the argument would go, because it isstaffed by professionals who have “chosen” their careers;and, as for zoos, the animals are “creatures of instinct” any-way and hence were never truly free even in the wild. Thiscounter-argument is far from convincing, however. First, inrejoinder, I would point out that many (probably most, per-haps all) of those who are displayed in pornography can hard-ly be said to have freely chosen their objectification.Furthermore, I am not prepared to allow instinct to becomethe imprimatur of zoological exhibition. Biting the bullet, Iwish to remind the reader that some cetaceans and other pri-mates appear to partake in what philosophers call positivefreedom (roughly autonomous agency). Dodging the bullet,I want to say that most (if not all) other wild animals are atleast negatively free in the sense of being at liberty to indi-vidually fulfill their species-being (which many qualitativelyexperience as well).It will be of no use, at this juncture, for zoo defenders toshift the ground and sing the praises of reform in naturalisticarchitecture, alleging that in the brave new no-bars biodome,the keep are effectively at liberty. No, that move won’t work— not, for instance, when the measurement of one jaguar’swild territory (twenty-five thousand acres) is greater than thetotal land area of all major zoos worldwide (Preece andChamberlain, 1993)! Moreover, there is reason to suspect theappeal to freedom that we are treating is itself aligned withthe structure of possessive consciousness. Indeed, the phe-nomenology of control from Hegel to Sartre shows that thedialectic of oppression manifests a paradoxical need —2Human Ecology Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1998Acamporanamely, that the master, consciously or otherwise, desires theslave to be free in and through exploitation itself.It would seem, then, that what may have come across asoutlandish at first glance — the analogy between zoos andpornography — is not at all preposterous and rather has muchto support its strength. The reader may wonder here what theupshot is. After all, one might counter, this comparative cri-tique succeeds only if one assumes a dubious attitude ofmoralistic prudery in the case of the analogue. My reply tothis last objection is that plausible distinctions can be made,in the area of erotica, between the politics of degradation andthe aesthetics of revelation. One way of marking that divideis to speak, as Berger does, of the difference between nudityand nakedness: “To be naked is to be oneself ... To be nude isto be seen naked by others and yet not recognized for oneself... A naked body has to be seen as an object in order tobecome a nude ... Nakedness reveals itself ... Nudity is placedon display ... To be naked is to be without disguise ... Nudityis a form of dress” (Berger 1972, 54).Now let us re-assess the difference at stake, by substitut-ing the wordscaptiveandwildfornudeandnaked.Thetransformation is not seamless, but with a bit of interpretivefinesse it is telling: to be wild is to be oneself; to be captiveis to be seen wild by others and yet not recognized for one-self (whyaren’t the nocturnal animals dancing by day whenwe come by?);a wild body has to be seen as an object in orderto become captive; wildness reveals itself (camouflagenotwithstanding);captivity is placed on display; to be wild isto be without disguise; captivity is a form of dress (costumecomplete with placards of identity and matching signs ofexhibit’s corporate sponsorship).My parenthetical remarksare not the only ones possible — with a little imagination,anyone who has gone to a zoo can add her own comments.In conclusion, I believe the study of zooscopic pornog-raphy would be particularly helpful in critically understand-ing the emergence of a generally visual culture — for there-in the politics of perception ramify to include even naturalhistory. Michel Foucault once observed that “for millennia,man remained what he was for Aristotle: a living animal withthe additional capacity for a political existence; modern manis an animal whose politics places his existence as a livingbeing in question” (1980, 143). Perhaps the postmodernhuman is an animal whose techniques of perceptual powermake his relations with other living beings suspect; maybewe now need a genealogy of the “zoopticon.” However thatmay be, before ending I want to avoid misconstrual of mycentral analogy and make it clear that I do not frown uponinvolvement with “wildlife,” whether biotic or erotic. In thecase of the former, I do feel there is an authentic animalencounter for which we have a biophilic need.The popularity of zoos far outstrips that of even majorleague professional sports; in the United States alone, theyattract 135 million people per year (Kellert 1997, 98). It islikely that the promotional factors of preservation, research,and education are neither necessary nor sufficient conditionsfor the existence of zoos. What we too lightly call “amuse-ment” is probably both necessary and sufficient, and there-fore we ought to redefine and further research this lattermotive. If something like what E. O. Wilson (1984) describesas biophilia lies behind our exhibition of other organisms,then I submit that our task is to develop modes of cultivatingthat biophilic drive and the associated affiliation with animalsin ways beyond and better than zoos do or can.To some ears, it may sound as if I am closing the doorprematurely on the promise of ameliorating zoos. In fact, oneobserver has already laid out an intriguing set of possiblepedagogical reforms for these institutions. Scott Montgomeryenvisions the zoo as a place to study the domestication of ani-mals, to reflect on animality’s conventional meanings, toinvestigate the cultural history of the zoo itself, and to ques-tion the very idea of Nature (Montgomery 1995, 576ff.).These are sophisticated goals, some of which are at odds withthe entertainment dynamic of the zoo as such. Actual educa-tional reform at the zoo is more modest, though still interest-ing as a putative catalyst for awakening student curiosity(SundayMorning,1998). My guess is that true transforma-tion — one which curtails the triviality and stereotyping of,say, television’sAnimal Planetand Disney’sAnimalKingdom— would change the zoo so radically that anothername for the site would be called for.So what might such changes look like? A first stepmight be to strip the zoo of its exoticism; the Belize TropicalEducation Center, for instance, keeps only native animals andthen usually only those that have been injured or orphaned(Coc et al. 1998, 389f.). A second step could involve abridg-ment or abandonment of the notion and practice of keepingitself. In Victoria, for example, at the southeast edge ofAustralia’s mainland, I have observed a site that has been setup for the protection and viewing of blue (or ‘fairy’) pen-guins who retain access both to the sea and their regularroosting burrows. It seems to me that, whatever else one maysay about ecotourism such as this, one of its cardinal virtuesis that it allows the animals themselves to engage or break offany encounter with human visitors. It is the observance ofthis elemental kind of ‘etiquette,’ referred to throughoutWeston (1994), that marks a distinctive departure from thepattern of pornography I have criticized above.AcknowledgmentsI am grateful for the thoughtful and constructive comments of ananonymous reviewer. I would also like to recognize the helpful contribu-Human Ecology Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, 19983Acamporations of Christa Davis Acampora and Fred Mills, as well as the support ofBruce Wilshire. Finally, Linda Kalof’s editorial encouragement to engagerevision was greatly appreciated.ReferencesAdams, C. 1994.Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense ofAnimals.New York: Continuum.Berger, J. 1972.Ways of Seeing.London: BBC/Penguin.Berger, J. 1977. Why Look at Animals? In J. Berger (ed.),About Looking,1-26. New York: Pantheon, 1980.Coc, R., L. Marsh and E. Platt. 1998. The Belize zoo: Grassroots efforts ineducation and outreach. In R. B. Primack et al. (eds.),Timber,Tourists, and Temples: Conservation and Development in the MayaForest of Belize, Guatemala, and Mexico,389-395. Washington,D.C.: Island Press.Foucault, M. 1980.The History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction.R. Hurley (trans.). New York: Random/Vintage.Greenaway, P.A., dir. 1988.Zoo: A Zed and Two Noughts.Beverly Hills:Pacific Arts Video.Griffin, S. 1981.Pornography and Silence: Culture’s Revenge AgainstNature.New York: Harper and Row.Hahn, E. 1967.Animal Gardens.Garden City: Doubleday.Kappeler, S. 1986.The Pornography of Representation.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.Kellert, S. 1979. Zoological Parks in American Society. Address given atthe meeting of the American Association of Zoological Parks andAquaria.Kellert, S. 1997.Kinship to Mastery: Biophilia in Human Evolution andDevelopment.Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Ludwig, E.G. 1981. Study of Buffalo Zoo. In M. Fox (ed.),InternationalJournal for the Study of Animal Problems.Washington, DC: Institutefor the Study of Animal Problems.Montgomery, S. L. 1995. The zoo: Theatre of the animals.Science asCulture21: 565-602.Mullan, B. and G. Marvin. 1987.Zoo Culture.London: Weidenfeld andNicolson.Preece, R. and L. Chamberlain. 1993.Animal Welfare and Human Values.Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.Schwartz, H. 1996.The Culture of the Copy: Striking Likenesses,Unreasonable Facsimiles.New York: Zone.Shepard, P. 1996.The Others: How Animals Made Us Human.Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Sunday Morning.12 April 1998. Televised on CBS, segment on “zooschools” in Lincoln, Nebraska, Minnesota, and elsewhere.Weston, A. 1994.Back to Nature: Tomorrow’s Environmentalism.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Wilson, E. O. 1984.Biophilia.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.4Human Ecology Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1998
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]