Anthromorphism and zoos

  • Thread starter Thread starter foz
  • Start date Start date
F

foz

Well-Known Member
Lets explore the use of anthromorphism in zoos, the pros the cons and your view on balance of both.

I think a little anthromorphism can be good to inspire and engage a visitor in the natural world, providing a springbaord into whcih they can leap into learning about the natural world, on the other hand i think too much can really undermine the seriousness and in fact detract from education. For example the inclusion of film characters like 'Nemo' with a collection's clown fish can just be silly.

What do you think/where do you stand on anthromorphism?
 
My feeling is that this thread of yours will be even more heated than 'Homosexuality in Zoos'! :D

Have fun guys! :p
 
Baldur said:
My feeling is that this thread of yours will be even more heated than 'Homosexuality in Zoos'! :D

Have fun guys! :p
Click to expand...

I hope so! that thread, i think, was quite a good example of how zoochat should work, that is a valid discussion on a zoo-related issue. However i honestly dont expect so much on this thread, im pretty sure most people will take quite a middle road route.

While im at it another question: is there differences in approaches to anthromorphism between continents (as there are with other exhibitor factors) and between style of zoos - for one i think that ive seen far more anthromorphism at commercial safari parks like West Midlands safari park then at zoos
 
I used to be completely against anthro. (I will shorten it to avoid any misspellings), but after seeing peoples reactions I have had somewhat of a change of heart. You give the example of Nemo (I absolutely love that movie by the way, I'm not afraid to admit that either as a nearly 30 year old male). With children you have given them something tangible to grasp on to. It is no longer just an orange and white fish, it has a deeper meaning, it is real to them. Now that that child has a personal relation with that animal it might open up other interests in icthyology, or anananemonmeology.

At the zoo people want to know an animals name, something very simple, but it makes that animal special to them. I see guests all the time coming and asking to see their favorite animal, one that they have developed a special relationship with. However, in the part of the zoo that I work in we are told to not say the animals names to the public. When I first started I completely bought into this idea as someone with high ideals of what a zoo should be. Now, I really would like to see what would happen if I was allowed to make things a little more personal. I bet the guests would care a lot more about what I have to say.

I would say 99 percent of the people out there want something simple to hold on to. Telling them that an animal is extinct in the wild won't do much for most people. However, if you tell them that animal's name is "Sarah" and you tell a little about that individual, then you've opened a window that you can get a conservation message across.
 
jbnbsn99 said:
or anananemonmeology.
Click to expand...

What on earth is that meant to be?


As far as anthropomorphism goes, I am against it in pretty well any form. Naming animals in any environment (zoo or the wild) is generally necessary from a management/identification aspect (as it's hard to remember a whole bunch of numbers), however I beleive that when naming animals it should not be names like 'Sarah', 'Anne', 'Fred', 'Sam' etc. Using words from the animals native country is a good practice established by many zoos.

I am deadset against dressing animals in clothes (unless it's for veterinary reasons) or getting them to behave like humans. Many of the animals shows in years gone by have focussed on that, for its comedy value.

I think one of the biggest problems in zoos is that when the general public see an animal performing a natural behaviour, they often equate it with human behaviour (or the behaviour of their pets) because this is something they can understand.

And - nothing to do with zoos - something that really annoys me is when people (usually kids, but often young adults) buy their first python hatchling and then return it a few weeks later because "It doesn't love me! It keeps trying to bite me!"

:p

Hix
 
Hix said:
I think one of the biggest problems in zoos is that when the general public see an animal performing a natural behaviour, they often equate it with human behaviour (or the behaviour of their pets) because this is something they can understand.
Click to expand...
Why is this such a big problem? (I bet nutters feeding the animals or trying to climb over into the exhibits, or paying the bills are all far bigger problems) It's quite instructive to watch a massive Amur tiger and see how similar its behaviour is to a domestic cat. It's an opportunity to grab interest and inform.

Zoos' bread and butter comes from bringing in the general public and engaging them with the animals (short of forcing the animals to perform tricks or dressing them up) in any way you can has to be beneficial. You have to harness natural human behaviour just as you do with any other animal! As you sit all alone in your zoo it will be small comfort that at least none of the animals are called Betty and no one can tell chimp 5 from chimp 6 or think it scratches itself just like Grandad.
 
Hix said:
Using words from the animals native country is a good practice established by many zoos.
Click to expand...

Maybe wallabies in Europe should be re-named Mate, Matilda, Bewdie, Billabong, Dinkum, No Worries etc... :D
 
OrangePerson said:
Why is this such a big problem?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess I didn't express what I meant too clearly. I was talking specifically about anthropomorphism, but might not have made that clear. What I should have said was 'widespread' instead of big, simply because it happens with most species throughout the zoo, most of the day (when staff aren't around to educate). And it's only a difficult situation if you want reduce anthropomorphism in the visitors. As you point out, it's simply a matter of education and there are far more serious issues in a zoo to worry about (more deserving of the moniker 'big problem').

As for naming wallabies, I can appreciate the humour - although I'm sure you know what I was getting at. Incidentally, I think Billabong and Dinkum would be acceptable names for wallabies (certainly better than Wally or Rueben - Roo for short).

:p

Hix
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top