For a second (and really only a second, because this is distracting me from my reading), let's return to the real purpose of this blog: talking about zoos (fauna -> research -> zoos).
If I had my little way, I would structure this blog in such a way as to systematically debunk or address the critiques of zoos that I come across. However, this is not the way life works and sometimes I want to write about other things. Despite what it may seem, I'm only so focused.
Well, I'm reading an article right now (Saying it with genes, species, and habitats: biodiversity conservation and zoo education by Malcolm Whitehead, 1994) and he has recently made the assertion that zoos must be careful not to convey a sense of human power over other living creatures.*
After hearing this argument so many times, it only now struck me how ridiculous this really is. Because who among us believes that humans do not exert power over the natural world?
I mean, come on. That's why we are in this whole conundrum right now, isn't it? Because humans are extremely powerful. We have the power to dramatically change the climate. We have the power to drive other species to extinction without even knowing we're doing it. We have the power to convert landscapes, blow up mountains, and change the face of the entire earth at will. The concept of "sustainability" is inherently flawed because our very presence on this planet is ultimately unsustainable. We're a nuclear reaction waiting to happen.
The argument that "zoos reflect the hegemony or power relationships of people over other sentient beings" is entirely simplistic, and in all honesty, giving us in the zoo world too much credit. Everything. EVERYTHING on this planet that has been touched by humans represents their power over other sentient beings. Everything. The ability to "arrange" animals in a zoo (remember, we're talking about modern zoos) for the purpose of education, conservation, and - dare I say it? - entertainment to these ends is probably the least of our problems.
Fortunately for us, however, this enormous power is the same thing that can someday possibly pull us out of the environmental crisis we have brought upon the earth. This power can be transformed into technology that gives us cleaner energy and an ability to use the Earth's resources more efficiently, meaning we get more for less. This power can, and has, helped us bring species back from the edge of extinction and help them adapt to changed habitats. Denying that we have power, or undervaluing this power, is the first step towards certain failure. Instead, we have to embrace the authority that we have created and understand it's magnitude.
Now, I understand that critics will read this and think (or say) that zoos represent an inappropriate display of power. My answer to that is two-fold: First, no they don't (and if I had less homework and an infinite amount of space, I would write all that out, but that will have to wait for further entries), and second of all, that's not the argument. The argument is that this power relationship, when seen in the form of zoos, is somehow as unnatural. The power of human beings over other life on Earth is a reality, and really not something we can eliminate.
In closing, I have to use one of my favorite quotes because this entry is begging for it:
"With great power, comes great responsibility."
On top of the mountains, in the fields and over all the landscapes where we have demonstrated our great power, we must recognize that power and assume the responsibilities that it carries. In this zoo, this means that if we are to use our power to exhibit and house animals, we have a responsibility to make sure that they are living as full a life as possible, and that they are the most effective ambassadors for their species that they can possibly be. I am greatly encouraged by my observations that, by and large, this is most certainly the highest priority for zoos in the United States, both in their broader missions and in their day to day goals.
*Don't get me wrong. I really like this paper. You should probably read it, because it's pretty good.
2 comments:
Considering zoo design, though, I would argue that one of its unintended (possibly intended?) results is the eradication of symbolic human power. That is, if you consider square shapes and hard angles to be symbolically human (since they rarely exist in landscape), the move toward more fluid design, along with the addition of natural substrates, realistic foliage, and indicative murals would seek to erase the human hand entirely. I haven’t read the article, but it seems like what the guy’s asserting has already been achieved.
The question is, should zoos strive toward the illusion of immersion? I would say…absolutely! Zoos should tug at the heart strings, create and foster emotion from its patrons. It’s an entirely unique type of experience to visit a zoo. It’s a container designed to foster specific subconscious emotion and thought, but unlike, say, a movie, the message is invigorated the more it is obfuscated. There’s no need for a zoo to call toward its own constructedness – its mere existence makes such an idea self-evident.
I certainly don’t disagree with you, but I highly support obscuring what a zoo actually is in favor of what a zoo wishes it could be.
I think that's the direction the design should go, absolutely! I think my main problem is that human power (or the perceived exertion of power) is used as an argument for not having zoos. But people need to realize that zoos are by no means the only, or even a particularly significant display of human power. It's not a valid argument against zoos because it can be so easily mitigated (like through the tools you're suggesting) and because it's not exclusive to this institution. There are many, many other more pressing negative consequences of human power over the environment out there in the world that one count point to if they wanted to use that argument.
Post a Comment