Why do humans keep animals in zoos and what sociological explanations have been offered for why people visit them - Essay Example

?Why humans keep animals in zoos Grade (3, December, Outline Outline 2 Introduction 3 Scientific experimentation 5 Anthropomorphism 6 Animal conservation 8 Power relations 9 Entertainment 13 Conclusion 16 References 17 Introduction The relationship between man and animals is often understood from man’s social and cultural background. Since animals cannot speak, it is man’s prerogative to interpret what the animal is trying to say. Usually, this will depend on the culture that one belongs. The zoological gaze is symptomatic of one’s historical experience as well as the environment that one belongs. A study of the zoological gaze is sufficient to understand the social practices and institutions of a certain place or time. Several books tend to look at this perspective from the ethical point of view. However, even an ethical analysis is dependent on the social background of the person concerned. The changing nature of zoos; their format, the reason behind their existence as well as the placement of individuals there is indicative of the divergent social origins of the population. Endangered animal species reflect a cultural background that values animal conservation and nature. Thematic leisure parks reflect the culture of consumerism and capitalism that has taken root in several western countries especially during the late twentieth century. Even the motivations for establishing zoos are dependent on culture and thus the prevailing values at the time. It is for this reason that sociology is especially relevant. It allows one to place this phenomenon, of animal watching in zoos, into context. All the latter depictions will be examined from a sociological lens in order to better understand why animals are kept in zoos. Spectacle For most people, a visit to the zoo is an opportunity to observe the otherworldliness of creatures kept in those establishments. In the 16th century, travelling zoos were a common phenomenon; these were known as menageries. Owing to the logistical challenges of transporting a large number of wild animals, it was often necessary to place these animals in narrow spaces. Minimal distance existed between spectators and the animals thus epitomising the gaze that several of them would enjoy. The public was amazed at the hideousness and strangeness of these creatures. Further, because few of them knew little about their background, it was assumed that these animals were dangerous and needed to be caged (Franklin, 1999). Little evidence exists to demonstrate imitations of the animals’ natural habitat. In fact, the public had no information about the source of these beasts. Their only concern was to gain amusement from them. However, because they knew that the animals were wild, then caging them seemed like an ideal arrangement. In fact, if attempts were made to recreate their natural environment, then this would have undermined their grotesque nature. Furthermore, because their caretakers were always moving all the time, zoos mirrored carnivals or other similar phenomena today (Love, 1999). The public saw these places as opportunities to step away from their daily encounters and enter into a surreal environment. The Victorian era was a time when rare animals were highly treasured. These were circumstances in which the costliest menageries were the ones that had the most unique species of animals. In fact, captors often overstated their role by claiming that they had utilised ingenious ways to access those creatures and thus capture them (Mazur, 2006). It was essentially a time when people had minimal knowledge about animals. There were quite curious and in need of seeing these strange beings. Several of them were thus perceived them as objects of amusement. The exhibitionist nature of these travelling zoos thus illustrates that the animals were a sight to behold. It came as no surprise that sometimes crowds would gather simply because of the acquisition of one animal (Ritvo, 1987). Scientific experimentation Zoological entrepreneurs started emphasising the scientific nature of their collections as far back as the nineteenth century. They introduced legitimacy in their collections through these notions. Naturalists at the time began visiting these zoos in order to deduce certain knowledge from the collections. In 1835, several menageries made their animals available for scientific research. It was possible for this group of people to conduct experiments on ruminants without causing a lot of harm. Furthermore, the zoos also gave out their carcasses to scientific investigators. Surgeons and other specialist investigators got different parts of the animal depending on what they required. Sometimes it would be the heart of a lion or the testes of a kangaroo (Ritvo, 1987). Therefore there was a niche group that most zoos were catering to. Elephants, tigers and lions were required in order to meet the needs of the general public. However, rare species were necessary for scientific experimentation. It should be noted that scientists were an elite group of consumers. They often had secluded areas where they could carry out their observations away from the distractions of the typical consumer. Therefore, a sort of class division was evident in these types of market segmentation (Turley, 1999). The move towards use of zoos as objects of scientific study and experimentation became rife after man’s attitude towards nature had changed dramatically. Man had struggled to subdue nature during the previous centuries. Therefore, his attitude towards it had also altered. It became evident that he could use nature for his own purposes. The scientists relied on wild animals for experimentation in order to find treatment for human beings. In this regard, man’s needs were still the key focal point for the existence of zoos (Zoonen, 1998). Anthropomorphism Human beings often seek for the familiar in nature. They will use their own experiences to observe animals in zoos. For instance, in the past, animals were kept in bars and chains. These approaches invoked feelings of imprisonment and sadness. The zoos reminded people about prison and punishment (Wirtz, 1997). Conversely, recreations of zoos in settings that mirror natural ecosystems have caused visitors to think about liberation and freedom. Man often places these human characteristics on animals because he is relying on his worldview to understand their circumstances. Therefore, he may attribute his own traits to those of animals without considering what could actually be going on in reality. Anthropomorphism came from the depiction of animals in literature earlier on and later in motion pictures. Rothfels (2002) talks about the story of Red Peter, who was an ape that came to live among humans. In fact, several stories exists concerning animals that were almost human. It is not uncommon to find photos of animals that are dressed in clothes and are using cutlery. In as much as some species may mimic human behaviour, they are still incapable of human thought or other intelligences that make man unique (Cronon, 1991). Nonetheless, this has not stopped man from ascribing such qualities to these creatures. Many people believe that these animals do possess such qualities. It is for this reason that a number of them continue to visit zoos in modern times. Sometimes, a story or motion picture may seem to focus on a certain animal. However, a thorough analysis of the same may reveal that it is really a story about people. Therefore, as explained in the earlier segment, man tends to use his own lens to look at the world. He interprets events on the bases of his own experiences. Likewise, animals are often assessed on the basis of human qualities. Pictures of such animals may seem frightful, reflective or exciting. These qualities are often imagined by those who bear them (Fraser & Sickler, 2008). Palmer (2011) adds that even in movies, anthropomorphism causes film makers to alter certain things in order to feed this hunger for human like attributes. For instance, sometimes directors will use trained animals in the place of wild animals. Alternatively, they may bait animals in order to bring them close to the camera. A number of them may even sequence films in order to make animals seem natural. Therefore, the need to ascribe human qualities to animals has propagated a successful film industry (Burt, 2002). This phenomenon is not just exclusive to modern cultures. Centurion (2010) talks about a tale in Spain, where several people tried to please the King through attribution of human traits to an Indian elephant. In 1775, the first elephant came to Aranjuez. It was a relatively calm animal that was covered with a gold mat fitted with little bells. The animal also did what its master had trained it to do. It was capable of aiming at a target and throwing stones as well as drinking wine, and several other things. The elephant was thus used as a source of entertainment to visitors in the royal estate. Regardless, of these impressive attributes, the animal still stayed true to its wild side. At one point, it broke off its enclosure and ran away. Its keepers had to look for it throughout the whole establishment. Furthermore, it had been given a room in which it could stay but it somehow found a way of breaking out of it. It also broke windows and a door along the way. The King then requested his workers to look for new ways of restraining the animal such as by chaining it (Centurion, 2010). These encounters demonstrate the thin line that existed between wild animals and their trainers. People in eighteenth century Spain tried to ascribe human qualities to the animal but found that there was little that could be done to tame their wild nature (Warner, 1994). Regardless of these failures, many guests of the royal palace were thoroughly impressed by the tricks that the animal could do. Likewise, modern-day zoo proprietors may attempt to transform animals such that they may mimic human behaviour. These often occur on a superficial level alone. Animal conservation The notion of the animal lover came into being after the 1950s. Rural landscapes became habitats for animal specialists and several charitable or environmental organisations sprung up. A number of them started lobbying for animals under the banner of protection. Society no longer accepted the notion that passive viewing of animals was acceptable in zoos. Therefore, these facilities became centres of the conservation movement (Franklin, 1999). People visited them because they empathised with the animals. Many created zoos that would replicate the animals’ natural environment in order to foster the protection of their rights. Kidman-Cox (2007) calls such animals ‘endangered species ambassadors’. They are placed in zoos in order to educate the masses about their endangerment. The institutions highlight the perspective that man has an active role to play in preservation of these species. Zoos can thus be reservoirs for the breeding and propagation of certain animals (Kirschbaum, 2013). A case in point was the white rhino, whose protection in zoos and conservatories has caused its population to increase from 200 to 11,500 animals in general. Scientists have done a lot of research to unravel the genetic information of these species and caused them to breed successfully. As a result, some of them can be reintroduced into their natural habitats and thrive. Zoos may maintain these species in order to keep the public informed about their susceptibility to extinction (Whatmore and Boucher, 1993). For these reasons, one may deduce that people come to visit zoos in order to support the environmental movement. From a sociological perspective, it marked the change from a focus on man’s needs to animal’s needs. It may even be interpreted by some as a more ethical outlook because it made it unacceptable to subject animals to unfavourable or torturous situations. When this movement took hold, there was now a new centre of attention than the one that had previously dominated (Thomas, 1983). Power relations Sociology allows one to understand the notion of zoos from the perspective of other social institutions in existence today. Man has often tried to confine and control by building social institutions. For instance, an army, hospital prison or boarding school is a confined space in which its members live structured lives (Mullan and Marvin, 1999). They are subjected to high degrees of surveillance, as well. Therefore, drawing on practices in such institutions, it is possible for one to understand the zoo gaze or motivations for visiting zoos. In order to justify the forceful removal of animals from their natural habitat and the placement of these creatures in a natural setting which caused them to alter their behaviour, it may be necessary to understand how the same behaviour is exhibited in mental asylums. People with mental disorders are usually taken out of society and confined into a certain space where they will have minimal contact with people from the outside world. It is often perceived that such persons have an otherness that makes them inferior to conventional human beings (Tudge, 1991). Therefore, it is justifiable to place them in an isolated setting which will contain them. Likewise, the placement of animals in zoos has been perceived as a depiction of man’s feelings of superiority over these creatures. When wild animals are regarded as brutes or persons separate from them, then it makes sense to brutalise them (Mullan and Marvin, 1999). This is in fact an attempt to minimise their animality by enforcing discipline in them. In fact, studies demonstrate that when animals are captured in zoos, they tend to exhibit certain behaviours that are different from their normal ones. These animals will display a submissiveness that is unnatural to them. Furthermore, they will lack initiative and interest in their environment, some of them will even become apathetic. These are all changes that may arise owing to placement of such animals in zoos (Wilson, 1992). Man’s attempt to control nature has been taken to the extreme through the phenomenon of zoos. He is thus demonstrating that he has the ability to exert control over these creatures because their natural state is unacceptable. It needs to be altered through various techniques of confinement. The first thing that an animal must experience is its removal from its natural habitat. It is often idle as it cannot move or hunt for food as its natural peers. Furthermore, humans have a direct control over what it can and cannot do. Most times, it is forced to do routine things such as eat or sleep. The confined animal in the zoo has no liberty to interact with similar animals in social groups, and even has to contend with artificial structures like light, noise and odours. No control may be exerted over its fertility or even its health. These creatures must thus react to such alterations through a change in character (Mullan and Marvin, 1999). People who come to visit animals in zoos appear to hold such attitudes towards them. They believe that the beastly nature of the animal is something unwanted, so they see no problem with the confinement of the same. Even when these animals seem more docile and detached than their natural counterparts, it may not be a problem for the concerned visitors because they will have an opportunity to see the ‘rectification’ of this wildness in the contained animals (Olney, 1980). Visitors in these zoos may thus agree with the operators of such establishments in terms of the inferiority and separateness of wild animals from them. Malamud (1998) talks about a radical depiction of this form of perception concerning zoos. He believes that it represents a deadening of the senses. Zoos cannot be regarded as a microcosm of the natural world because they distil, oversimplify and remove animals from their natural setting. This depicts the relationship that human beings have with their natural world. It is indicative of their tendency to dominate and exert power over it. One may analyse the power relationship between man and animals in zoos on the basis of imperialism. Natives and the colonialists have a relationship that mirrors what goes in zoos. Usually, colonialists minimise the autonomy of their subjects. Likewise, zoo keepers minimise wild animals’ autonomy in zoos by controlling the physical conditions of their existence. Imperialists exercise powers over natives because of the surveillance they hold over them. Similarly, zoo masters will survey and construct the same arrangement in their zoos. The dominion that man has over animals is analogous to imperialist societies. Man relies on an exploitative relationship of power over natural creatures like animals (Malamud, 1998). Power relations may also be regarded in a totally different light based on the behaviour of nineteenth century captors. Several cities in Britain boasted about the diversity of their menageries. The more zoos that these areas had, the more dominion they purported to exert over other people around the world. Wild animals thus had a symbolic nature because they were symptomatic of a patriotic obligation of the proprietors. British society at the time tried to exert its superiority over others through the number of zoos that it purported to own. In this regard, power relations are not defined in terms of the relationship between man and animals but between man and man. A group could boast about its ability to conquer other land owing its vast collection of animals (Ritvo, 1987). Many leaders received gifts from subjects or conquered places around the world. They used those items as indications of their own biases. In subsequent centuries, the placement of animals in zoos may also be regarded as a purveyor of power relations between man and man. This is especially relevant to status and the aristocrats in those societies. During the nineteenth century, zoos were an exclusive institution in which admission was reserved for the elite. In the 1820s, members of parliament would receive invitations to see animals in zoos. There were specific privileges that they would enjoy where the rest of society was immune. Membership in zoos allowed subscribers to access plush gardens that were highly restricted. Additionally, the designs of these facilities were such that elite members could look down upon members of the rest of the society from upper floors. Ritvo (1987) explains that in London, one had to get vouched by a member of the club in order to gain entrance into its zoological gardens. The proprietors of the zoo affirmed that their intention was to protect the garden from contamination by poor classes. However, the ingenuity of its people was not one to be underwritten. The underprivileged found a way of circumventing these laws and entering those secluded places. Regardless of the failure to enforce these class distinctions seamlessly, it is still clear that during the nineteenth century, zoos were yet another symbol of social status. Proprietors used them to enforce the rigid class structure that existed at the time. A number of sociological institutions were appropriated by the aristocrats in order to assert their place in British society. Even a zoological experience has immense ramifications on the standings of individuals in society. It was a way for the upper classes to dominate the lower class by proving to them that they could not interact or form groups with any of them. It should be noted that this perspective of zoos changed dramatically in modern society, as zoos are no longer seen as places of great social status. In fact, patronage is all-inclusive, yet certain leisure experiences like museums are not. This transformation in the nature of patronage can be attributed to several things, and one of them is the primacy of scientific and educational knowledge. If one compares the cultural status of a zoo with an art gallery, the latter holds greater value than the former. It is often assumed that a gallery is a place of intellectual stimulation while a zoo is merely a recreational facility. Furthermore, since animals are kept in zoos, then their uniqueness can be put into question as they are replaceable. Conversely, artefacts require creativity and human intelligence to create, yet animals simply come into being. Animals in their own right have no historical value, so their significance is debatable when compared to art objects. The shift of attention away from zoos as symbols of cultural status is thus attributable to a change in values in modern society. The educational quality of an item now increases its worth. Its historical significance in relation to man also adds merit to its prevalence. Therefore, the intellectual era has altered how people perceive such institutions. Many of them now place value on things that preserve this understanding. Entertainment Davis (1997) explains that zoos have a lot to offer people who are out to entertain themselves. These facilities are endowed with various plants and vegetation that give an aura of natural beauty. Some entities may hire specialists in horticulture and theme park management in order to catch the customer’s eye. The key idea is to build a place that people can find familiar but foreign. Most zoos have zones where one cannot enter with a car. As a result, visitors may get lost in the rich natural atmosphere. Zoos are managed in such a way that they will engage their consumers for a period that is long enough to generate income. Sight seers thus find that there is so much to do than simply observing or photographing animals. Several of them will purchase souvenirs, food and other products that make them comfortable. The choice of activities in these zoos is such that it will not bore people, but might also not be alarming to them. The landscapes are often diverse and orderly. They offer patrons all manner of visual and sensational stimulation. Proprietors of such facilities keep in mind that consumers will demand value for their money. They want to feel fulfilled by their experience once they enter into such a space. Consumers are now the main drivers behind these theme parks. Animals are kept as just one of the many entertainment options. This point of view is prevalent in contemporary society, and differs substantially from the motivations evident in the nineteenth century. At the time, visitors were not economically empowered. Several Victorian era consumers would be satisfied by a single animal display. They had little economic power, so they could demand less from zoo keepers. At the time, urban residents were also unexposed to wild animals and went to see the peculiarity of these animals. However, the standard of living has dramatically improved today. Consumers are highly informed about their rights. When they visit a recreational facility, they expect top quality services. It is not enough for a zoo keeper to simply focus on animals (McNeil, 1999). The proprietor must think of other ways of enhancing consumer satisfaction. Furthermore, many citizens are already aware of the physical features of these wild animals, so a number of them would want more from a facility. Kalof & Fitzgerald (2007) explains that this view is line with the move away from the significance of animals in modern society. Modern society now treats animals in a manner that deviates from previous eras. Animals were previously regarded as the origin of human species. Therefore, they had a special place in interactions with man. This explains why scientists were quite interested in visiting zoos and even enjoyed elite status in its zoos before. However, this perspective has changed considerably. It is no longer true today as the significance of animals in interactions with man has reduced. Now, they are often seen in documentaries or gazed at in zoos. One may thus say that the significance of zoos has faded owing to alterations in perspectives towards animals in general. They are now just a source of entertainment and do not offer much else in terms of education. Another dimension of power relations may also be understood through the analysis of animals in zoos. It was a portrayal of racism and aspects of white superiority among the people of the western world. Amato (2009) highlights the issues that arose when a white elephant was brought to London by Phineas Barnum. This individual was a trickster who made a declaration that he had bought a white elephant and would be exhibiting it in the London Zoological Gardens. Many writers, analysts and observers were curious about this now find, and wanted to see for themselves whether a white elephant truly existed. A number of them were utterly disappointed to find that it was nothing like they had anticipated. The animal appeared to have a dull colour that only came close to the stated one. It became evident that this may have been a case of false advertising. Regardless of this man’s fraud, it is the discussions around the possibility of seeing a white elephant that warrant attention. Britons felt that the animal would reaffirm white superiority. Since people in the East worshipped the animal for is whiteness, then this was evidence that white pigmentation was a marker of enlightenment. British imperial intentions would thus gain justification through the treatment of such an animal. In some respects this incident demonstrates that zoos were platforms for racism. Man could use what he saw in nature to justify his oppression or domination of other groups. It served to preserve racial hegemony and colonialism in subsequent times (Anderson, 1995). Conclusion Humans keep animals in zoos in order to propagate power relations between themselves and nature or between a certain category of humans and another. Aristocrats in nineteenth century Britain used zoos to exert power over the lower classes by segregating the premises. Zoos have also been a depiction of man’s control over animals through surveillance and removal from their natural habitat. It may be seen as a failed attempt of rectifying the freakishness of animals trough confinement. Other explanations to the reason behind keeping animals in zoos can be found in historical validations of the same. People went to view animals as a spectacle because this corresponded to an anthropocentric view. Others did it for scientific reasons and experimentation while others did it for conservation as this corresponded to the scientific age of the time. Modern day visitors currently do it for anthropocentric purposes as well as entertainment, which are in tandem with a consumerism culture. References Amato, S. (2009). The white elephant in London: an episode of trickery, racism and advertising. Journal of Social History, 43, 31-66. Anderson, K. (1995).Culture and nature at the Adelaide Zoo. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 20(3), 275-294. Burt, J. (2002). Animals in film. Reaktion Books: London. Centurion, G. (2010). Treasures fit for a King: King Charles III of Spain's Indian Elephants. Journal of the History of Collections, 22, 29-44. Cronon, W. (1991). Nature's Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. New York, N.Y.: W.W. Norton & Co. Davis, S. (1997). Spectacular nature: corporate culture and the sea world experience. Berkeley: University of California Press. Franklin, A. (1999). Animals and modern cultures : a sociology of human-animal relations in modernity. London : Sage. Fraser, J., & Sickler, P. (2008). Measuring the cultural impact of zoos and aquariums. International Zoo Yearbook, 43(1), 103-111. Kalof, L., & Fitzgerald, A. (2007). The animals reader. Oxford, Burg. Kidman-Cox, R. (2007). Single White Rhino. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/singlewhiterhino.shtml Kirschbaum, K. (2013). Escaping the zoo: Exploring personal views. London: Routledge. Love, G. (1999). Revaluing Nature: Toward an Ecological Criticism. Western American Literature, 25, 201-15. Malamud, R. (1998). Reading zoos: representations of animals and captivity. London: Routledge. Mullan, B. & Marvin, P. (1999). Zoo culture. Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press. Olney, P. (1980). London Zoo. Society Of The Bibliography Of Natural History, 3(5), 19 Palmer, C. (2010). Shooting in the wild: an insider’s account of making movies in the animal kingdom. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books. Ritvo, H. (1987). The animal estate: the English and other creatures in the Victorian age. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Rothfels, N. (2002). Savages and beasts: the birth of the modern zoo. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Mazur, N. (2006). Zoos and conservation: Policy making. Journal of the International Association of Zoo Educators, 29, 74-77. McNeil, D. Jr. (1999, June 28). Out of a Failed African Circus, a Lion of Legend. New York Times, p. A4. Thomas, K. (1983). Man and the natural world: changing attitudes in England 1500-1800. London: Allen Lane. Tudge, C. (1991). Last animals at the zoo: can the world’s animals be saved from mass extinction by captive breeding? London: Hutchinson Radius. Turley, S. (1999). Conservation and tourism in the traditional UK zoo. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 10(2), 55. Warner,M. (1994). Managing monsters: Six myths of our time. London: Vintage. Whatmore, S. and Boucher, S. (1993). Bargaining with nature: the discourse and practice of environmental planning gain. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 18(2), 166-79. Wilson,A. (1992). The culture of nature: North American landscape from Disney to the Exxon Valdez. Oxford: Blackwell. Wirtz, P. (1997). Zoo city: Bourgeois values and scientific culture in the industrial era. Journal of Urban Design, 2(1), 138. Zoonen, L. (1998). A day at the zoo: Political communication, pigs and popular culture. NY: Norton. Read More