The Salem witch trials existed as simply one eruption following a series of violent storms dating back to the beginning of the burnings. Thousands of innocents were put to death in Europe in the previous years, but less than twenty died in Salem, making it a blip on the radar compared to the overall mass of killings. With this in mind we can’t help but question why Salem has attracted so much of our attention. It could perchance be that no one has conceived an undeniable explanation for the incident this in turn might give rise to the fear that a witch hunt like Salem may occur again.
When studying the origins of a witch trial one must essentially examine the social and psychological underpinnings of the group. In all of the varieties of witch trials, from the Red Scare to the Clinton impeachment, these sometimes scandalous tendencies appear to be universally analogous with each other. Thus meaning that a definite, yet not so simple social conformity predisposition is involved in all of these episodes. The occurrences of the Salem witch trials and the beliefs held by the citizens can be explained, at least in part, by the psychological biases held by the general public.
While it is true that people tend to adhere to popular ideas in order to validate their own personal beliefs, it is more truthful to say that the popular view was created and sustained by their conformity and by group-think. Although, the popular belief may have originated from someone or something influential and high up in the hierarchy (the Church) its power comes from its mass acceptance. Once a leader supports a certain idea the rest of the ‘herd’ will follow creating a bandwagon effect, performing or believing in a certain thing just because others do or believe in it. These ideas and practices are then referred to as memes. The beliefs held at Salem were not novel, but centuries old and essentially memes or units of cultural information. As demonstrated, the witch trials have everything to do with psychology (which is behind virtually every human action and concept), but the most important tool in recognizing these tendencies is to examine the trial itself.
Salem, like most other villages was made up of a very rigid caste system. The meetinghouse is an excellent example of this. The seating in this religiously oriented building was arranged so that the women and men were separated, the rich and powerful sat towards the front, the poor in the back, and the slaves and children in the balconies. This acted as a vivid visual representation of the hierarchy present in the society. The closer one is to the reverend the more power one has and the more important one is to God. Because of the blatancy of one’s social position stereotypes and a sense of segregation thrived, therefore making the poor and unpopular especially vulnerable to accusations. The public was conditioned to be biased against each other, allowing the source of an individual’s personal conflict to be directed on someone else who was most often less popular and influential.
As could be expected, the first few women indicted were not of high standing in the society. For instance, Tituba, the slave of Samuel Parris was an especially easy target; her heritage, race, and social stature had already evoked suspicions and prejudices from the villagers; accusing her of bewitchment simply acted as a method of substantiating these beliefs.
The act of accusing itself played upon the widely held beliefs of the townsfolk. When Abigail and the other girls when into fits of convulsions and seizures the ultimate cause was accepted as bewitchment. Once asked who was the cause of these afflictions they pointed fingers, conveniently, to some of the most vulnerable individuals in town.
After the initial allegations, there was an explosion of, “I saw ‘so-and-so’ with the Devil.” Each person accused pointed the finger at other people in order to escape persecution and feed the fire. Interestingly enough, once a new person was accused many of the other townspeople jump in and accuse that person of doing other evil deeds. This effect echoes the bias of hindsight, the “I knew it all along” effect. Seemingly ordinary and often charitable things that the alleged witch did for them are now reminisced as malicious acts. A fictional example is Goody Putnam’s testimony against Rebecca Nurse for the deaths of her babies (from the Crucible by Arthur Miller). This instance is also a good example of belief bias in which one will tend to accept the conclusions that correspond with one’s beliefs. The notion that Putnam could not bear a child to term was too shameful for her which was subconsciously repressed and the blame was directed to an outside source (an example of defensive projection or “scapegoating”). Since the popular reason for misfortune in those years was the Devil, bewitchment was automatically attributed to the cause.
The group polarization phenomenon also explains why so many people jumped in to accuse. People tend to be more extreme in their opinions and decisions in groups in order to make a point and polarize from the opposing opinion. Thus the more people joined Abigail in the frenzy, the stronger the pressure to make and maintain an accusation.
The attribution error is a critical element in explaining why individuals sought to point the finger in the first place. In order to gain a better sense of control people often attribute a specific cause to the events around them. For instance, when another person has erred, one will imply that it is due to internal personality characteristics. However, when the individual has made a mistake, he or she will most likely attribute the causes to certain situational factors in order to deflect the blame from themselves.
Spectral evidence was the primary and virtually only grounds for prosecution. Only when this type of ‘proof’ was denounced by authorities, the witch trials came to an end. Why was this allowed in court? Since witchcraft was a very difficult charge to prove spectral evidence provided a seemingly fool-proof verification. This played upon peoples beliefs that witches did not physically perpetrate these acts; they commissioned intangible spirits or the Devil to commit the crimes. The “victims” could easily pretend to be bewitched and obtain control over others and gain sympathy from the town, making it an easy way for someone low in the social hierarchy to gain popularity. This kind of behavior is referred to as a social trap: one harms themselves and/or others by working in one’s own self-interest. “Goody Proctor, bit, pinched, and almost choked me!” exclaimed Ann Putnam Jr., one of the most active girls in the witch craze, indicted over 60 people. Her extensive list of accusations may have been at least partially due to the pressure she faced by her parents and community elders who held numerous grudges against the “witches”.
It appears that this adherence to popular ideas is more than a validation of one’s own beliefs, but also a type of societal survival mechanism used to conform and adapt. In addition, the adoption of many of these common beliefs acts as a psychological defense mechanism, giving them a seemingly rational explanation and a sense of control.
Since the burnings had been so prominent in Europe it seemed only a matter of
time until the chaos broke out in America. The Puritans shared the same beliefs about witches as their neighbors across the Atlantic, they had been raised on the same fairy tales, and their reverends preached the same propagandized fear. Almost everyone adhered to the same widespread ideas and incorporated them into their lives to shift responsibility for strokes of bad luck and poor crops to the Devil and his minions. Such a profound and odious occurrence should be used as a learning experience. Yet, this lack of personal responsibility and blame has not subsided. Instead, it has molted onto different forms (the Red Scare, the holocaust) with increasing variability. People do not seem to learn from the mistakes of others, but, in actuality, repeat them. Perhaps one day we will be able to kick this defensive cycle and take back control of the wheel, rowing our own boat instead of letting the water carry us where it pleases.
2006
Monday, November 30, 2009
“What I Love and Hate About Visual Culture:” How Zoos Reflect the Human/Animal Relationship
Why do people visit zoos? We tell ourselves it is to educate our children on the wonders of the animal world. That somehow seeing a lion in a zoo will generate appreciation and understanding of its place in the world. However, what can we learn about a culture by studying its zoos? Is it possible that zoos are more efficient in revealing how we distinguish ourselves from the rest of the environment than educating us on the nature of certain species? Zoos exist as curious and compelling creations of human civilizations: attempting to fill the role as educational institutions and as entertainers in tandem. Zoos reveal relationships, confused and obscured relationships between the human and animal worlds. They are dioramas: miniature, condensed, and dynamic representations that define the piebald interactions between ‘man and beast.’
It can be safely assumed that the majority of any given urbanized civilization has a childhood memory of a family visit to the local zoo. They have existed in various forms for millennia, carefully ingraining themselves in our society so deeply that they have become a significant aspect of our visual culture. “Zoos have evolved independently in all cultures across the globe,” states David Hancocks. The first zoo was established over 4,000 years ago, located in a ancient Sumerian city. It existed as a menagerie of various exotic animals displayed to emphasize the wealth and power of the kings who possessed them. They were often gifts given by passive neighboring kingdoms. The animals were items to represent the advancement of a civilization, existing as “living jewels” that, “could signify a man’s power over other men as much as his dominance over the beasts,” (Hancocks 6-7). Zoos illustrate our veneration of the natural world, but also our desire to control it.
As a result the exploration of European societies, zoos evolved out of the scientific revolution between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries (Hancocks 17). The world began to take on a more scientific approach to the human-animal relationship, and effectively, zoos disassociated themselves from their solely recreational pasts. Arrangements of animals and their makeshift habitats started to become more accurate and conscious (44-45). In the mid seventies the aim of zoos had begun to change: they intended to re-instill in the minds of their visitors the “wildness of wild animals” (82-85). Thus the concept of environmental enrichment emerged. Employees realized that visually unappealing environments correlated with negative views of the associated animals. The enclosures began to resemble a species’ natural habitat, and in turn animals exhibited more naturalistic behaviors, and evoked a higher sense of admiration and interest from spectators (82-85).
Zoos may have gained ground in an attempt to increase their scientific credibility, but they could not improve their cultural status. Zoos are still seen as a place for children and recreation. This is one critical element that segregates a zoo’s identity from the high culture realm of science that is reserved for natural history museums and art galleries (Mullan 122). Representations of animals in museums could be easily studied and quantified, whereas in zoos people had a tendency to attribute human personality traits to with the animals they observe. Thus, they saw reflections of themselves instead of specimens, which was easier to do with a something dead, and could be identified as an object. Specimens in museums and art galleries obtained a certain amount of value; stuffed animals were a product of taxidermists who preserved them, but could not obtain the irreplaceability found in art. According to Mullen, this is because animals had, “…no intrinsic worth…ironically, representations of these same animals…could be seen in this light,”(122-124). Animals do not need to be interpreted, they do not denote anything culturally. Perhaps this is an important factor inhibiting zoos from being seen in the same reputable cultural light as art and museum institutions.
Zoos have come a long way in the past 40 years; the space in which one can observe animals in barren, iron cages have, in most instances, vanished (Hancocks 140-141). Although zoos held a purely recreational past, today they survive because of their attempt to achieve goals of conservation and education. Zoos have an enormous potential to shape public opinion (xvii). Therefore, if we are not taught how to relate to animals through other institutions, then zoos exist as the gatekeepers to that education. Ever since the 1970’s habitat-based exhibits in zoos have become increasingly popular; displaying animals in enclosures that represent ecosystems (xix). How animals are exhibited has shown to directly influence how they will be viewed. Thus, a more natural setting will prompt more reverential reactions (Mullan 68).
The wildlife extinction rates are steadily increasing; a direct result of human actions. Zoos have proved to be a necessary tool for education regarding our earth’s dilemma, and simultaneously serve as conservation parks for endangered species. Campaigns for better legislations would provide protection for ecosystems, reduce pollution, and encourage funding for other conservation programs (Hancocks 149-151).
Enrichment programs have also vastly improved zoo animal’s quality of life. Toys, playmates, and stimulating environments are the most common types of enrichment. All zoos are encouraged to implement at least one of these measures in order to benefit the vitality and empowerment of animals with their environment (Shepherdson 30-31). For instance, cheetahs in the San Diego Wild Animal Park chase lures in their enclosures for mental and motor stimulation (268-269). With these new improvements zoos provide a caché of tools to benefit wildlife, as well as significantly influence public and political opinion about the animal world.
Studies show that, even today, many people still depart zoos with a loss of respect for wildlife (Hancocks xviii). The media only exacerbates this mentality: they portray new animal additions as being tamed by the zoo, and using witty lines like, “Downsized but not dead. Food and shelter but no more wild nights” (Jensen 6). As a result of society’s disregard for the credibility of zoos, the discussion is led to whether or not is it our duty to discipline and subjugate wildlife? The irony is: zoos attempt to teach us about an animals rightful place, when in effect its’ representation cheapens its intention (47-48).
Conservation is also another factor that zoos use to justify their existence. In truth, zoos contribute very little to the preservation of endangered species. Breeding programs are aimed at maintaining a zoo’s menagerie of animals, but they do little to aid in conserving the biological diversity of the rest of the world (Hancocks 158-159). In addition, many excess animals bred in captivity are often sold off to circuses, animal merchants, ‘game farms’, and ‘trophy collectors’ (Jensen 49).
Zoos promote hierarchical and dominating relationships with nature. They are institutions in which we do not look but gaze at animals. How animals are exhibited has shown to directly influence how they will be viewed (Mullan 68). If we still perceive
ourselves as superior to these animals after a visit to a zoo, then it appears that nature continues to be displayed in a fashion that suits the inflated human ego.
“Zoos are plagued by moral ambiguity,” reveals Sean Nash, and by serving as allegorical manifestations of human’s relationship with nature, they have symbolized man’s domination over the natural world and each other (Hancocks 146). Because of this we cannot clearly define our relationship with the animal world. Zoos need to progress in order to justify their existence as educational and conservational institutions. An increase in funding for wildlife funds, research, and educational opportunities for the public would generate a more credible image in their communities. Free range zoos more accurately display animals in natural surroundings, emphasizing their connection to an ecosystem. If they are to gain a respectable status, zoos will have to redefine the very word they regard themselves as.
Bibliography:
Hancocks, David. A Different Nature: The Paradoxical World of Zoos and Their Uncertain Future. California: University of California Press, 2001.
Hanson, Elizabeth. Animal Attractors. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2002.
Jensen, Derrick. Thought to Exist in the Wild: Awakening From the Nightmare of Zoos. California: NoVoice Unheard, 2007.
Mullan, Bob, and Garry Marvin. Zoo Culture. London: George Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd, 1987.
Nash, Sean Levon. Personal Interview. 24 Nov. 2008.
Shepherdson, David J., Jill D. Mellen, and Michael Hutchins, eds. Second Nature: Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1998.
2007
It can be safely assumed that the majority of any given urbanized civilization has a childhood memory of a family visit to the local zoo. They have existed in various forms for millennia, carefully ingraining themselves in our society so deeply that they have become a significant aspect of our visual culture. “Zoos have evolved independently in all cultures across the globe,” states David Hancocks. The first zoo was established over 4,000 years ago, located in a ancient Sumerian city. It existed as a menagerie of various exotic animals displayed to emphasize the wealth and power of the kings who possessed them. They were often gifts given by passive neighboring kingdoms. The animals were items to represent the advancement of a civilization, existing as “living jewels” that, “could signify a man’s power over other men as much as his dominance over the beasts,” (Hancocks 6-7). Zoos illustrate our veneration of the natural world, but also our desire to control it.
As a result the exploration of European societies, zoos evolved out of the scientific revolution between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries (Hancocks 17). The world began to take on a more scientific approach to the human-animal relationship, and effectively, zoos disassociated themselves from their solely recreational pasts. Arrangements of animals and their makeshift habitats started to become more accurate and conscious (44-45). In the mid seventies the aim of zoos had begun to change: they intended to re-instill in the minds of their visitors the “wildness of wild animals” (82-85). Thus the concept of environmental enrichment emerged. Employees realized that visually unappealing environments correlated with negative views of the associated animals. The enclosures began to resemble a species’ natural habitat, and in turn animals exhibited more naturalistic behaviors, and evoked a higher sense of admiration and interest from spectators (82-85).
Zoos may have gained ground in an attempt to increase their scientific credibility, but they could not improve their cultural status. Zoos are still seen as a place for children and recreation. This is one critical element that segregates a zoo’s identity from the high culture realm of science that is reserved for natural history museums and art galleries (Mullan 122). Representations of animals in museums could be easily studied and quantified, whereas in zoos people had a tendency to attribute human personality traits to with the animals they observe. Thus, they saw reflections of themselves instead of specimens, which was easier to do with a something dead, and could be identified as an object. Specimens in museums and art galleries obtained a certain amount of value; stuffed animals were a product of taxidermists who preserved them, but could not obtain the irreplaceability found in art. According to Mullen, this is because animals had, “…no intrinsic worth…ironically, representations of these same animals…could be seen in this light,”(122-124). Animals do not need to be interpreted, they do not denote anything culturally. Perhaps this is an important factor inhibiting zoos from being seen in the same reputable cultural light as art and museum institutions.
Zoos have come a long way in the past 40 years; the space in which one can observe animals in barren, iron cages have, in most instances, vanished (Hancocks 140-141). Although zoos held a purely recreational past, today they survive because of their attempt to achieve goals of conservation and education. Zoos have an enormous potential to shape public opinion (xvii). Therefore, if we are not taught how to relate to animals through other institutions, then zoos exist as the gatekeepers to that education. Ever since the 1970’s habitat-based exhibits in zoos have become increasingly popular; displaying animals in enclosures that represent ecosystems (xix). How animals are exhibited has shown to directly influence how they will be viewed. Thus, a more natural setting will prompt more reverential reactions (Mullan 68).
The wildlife extinction rates are steadily increasing; a direct result of human actions. Zoos have proved to be a necessary tool for education regarding our earth’s dilemma, and simultaneously serve as conservation parks for endangered species. Campaigns for better legislations would provide protection for ecosystems, reduce pollution, and encourage funding for other conservation programs (Hancocks 149-151).
Enrichment programs have also vastly improved zoo animal’s quality of life. Toys, playmates, and stimulating environments are the most common types of enrichment. All zoos are encouraged to implement at least one of these measures in order to benefit the vitality and empowerment of animals with their environment (Shepherdson 30-31). For instance, cheetahs in the San Diego Wild Animal Park chase lures in their enclosures for mental and motor stimulation (268-269). With these new improvements zoos provide a caché of tools to benefit wildlife, as well as significantly influence public and political opinion about the animal world.
Studies show that, even today, many people still depart zoos with a loss of respect for wildlife (Hancocks xviii). The media only exacerbates this mentality: they portray new animal additions as being tamed by the zoo, and using witty lines like, “Downsized but not dead. Food and shelter but no more wild nights” (Jensen 6). As a result of society’s disregard for the credibility of zoos, the discussion is led to whether or not is it our duty to discipline and subjugate wildlife? The irony is: zoos attempt to teach us about an animals rightful place, when in effect its’ representation cheapens its intention (47-48).
Conservation is also another factor that zoos use to justify their existence. In truth, zoos contribute very little to the preservation of endangered species. Breeding programs are aimed at maintaining a zoo’s menagerie of animals, but they do little to aid in conserving the biological diversity of the rest of the world (Hancocks 158-159). In addition, many excess animals bred in captivity are often sold off to circuses, animal merchants, ‘game farms’, and ‘trophy collectors’ (Jensen 49).
Zoos promote hierarchical and dominating relationships with nature. They are institutions in which we do not look but gaze at animals. How animals are exhibited has shown to directly influence how they will be viewed (Mullan 68). If we still perceive
ourselves as superior to these animals after a visit to a zoo, then it appears that nature continues to be displayed in a fashion that suits the inflated human ego.
“Zoos are plagued by moral ambiguity,” reveals Sean Nash, and by serving as allegorical manifestations of human’s relationship with nature, they have symbolized man’s domination over the natural world and each other (Hancocks 146). Because of this we cannot clearly define our relationship with the animal world. Zoos need to progress in order to justify their existence as educational and conservational institutions. An increase in funding for wildlife funds, research, and educational opportunities for the public would generate a more credible image in their communities. Free range zoos more accurately display animals in natural surroundings, emphasizing their connection to an ecosystem. If they are to gain a respectable status, zoos will have to redefine the very word they regard themselves as.
Bibliography:
Hancocks, David. A Different Nature: The Paradoxical World of Zoos and Their Uncertain Future. California: University of California Press, 2001.
Hanson, Elizabeth. Animal Attractors. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2002.
Jensen, Derrick. Thought to Exist in the Wild: Awakening From the Nightmare of Zoos. California: NoVoice Unheard, 2007.
Mullan, Bob, and Garry Marvin. Zoo Culture. London: George Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd, 1987.
Nash, Sean Levon. Personal Interview. 24 Nov. 2008.
Shepherdson, David J., Jill D. Mellen, and Michael Hutchins, eds. Second Nature: Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1998.
2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)