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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment