This document provides an overview of the history and development of zoos from ancient times to the modern zoo. It discusses zoos as spectacles that began with menageries of kings and evolved into the first modern zoo in London in 1826. The document examines how zoos were constructed and organized, with early zoos focusing on taxonomic separation of species. It analyzes issues like the treatment of animals in captivity and tensions between conservation and entertainment roles of zoos. The document also critically discusses zoos as passive spectacles that fail to generate creative experiences and may encourage voyeurism and demanding behaviors from visitors.

1. Neil McPherson Society & Human/Nonhuman Animal Relations (SOCY10015) Lecture 8: Spectacle and sport: the nonhuman animal as entertainment. Pt2 The Zoo Dr NEIL McPHERSON Email: neil.mcpherson@uws.ac.uk Twt:@neilgmcpherson SMS:07708 931 325

2. Neil McPherson Considering the role of the zoo Spectacle Conservation Production of scientific knowledge Educational engagment Entertainment

3. Neil McPherson A brief history of the zoo & zoological garden Around for more than 4500 years – Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, China Medieval Europe – exotic animals - the property of kings Fredrick II (1194-1250) – Holy Roman Emperor – treatise on falconry – ecology, behaviour, anatomy King John (1199 to 1216) – menagerie established at the Tower of London – Lions at the Tower of London The Menagerie of Versailles – Louis XIV

4. Neil McPherson The Ménageriede Versailles (built 1662-1664) Spectacular architectural project Designed by Louis Le Vau under order of Louis XIV Regarded as the first modern zoo (see Senior 2004) Perhaps the influence behind Bentham’s Panopticon Blueprint for the disciplinary architecture of the Modern Age

5. Neil McPherson The Ménageriede Versailles (1664) Bentham’s Panopticon

6. Neil McPherson The Ménageriede Versailles (1664)

7. Neil McPherson The Ménageriede Versailles (1664)

8. Neil McPherson The Ménagerie de Versailles – Man and the Natural World Two fundamental intentions in the menagerie’s construction: to make nature visible to man to separate that nature into groupings of species The human observer could look out from the central position of the pavilion over a vista of nonhuman animals, able to scan the totality of that vista from a singular point, thereby encapsulating the power of observation over the natural world.

9. Neil McPherson The Ménagerie de Versailles (1664) Each enclosure held groupings of nonhuman animals In 1700 the groupings evident included: Courdes Pelicans– large birds from Asia and Africa; Courdes Autruches– ostriches Courdes Oiseaux– various birds and small animals; Basse-cour – where “animals for the king's table were raised” (see Robbins 2002: 43)

10. Neil McPherson The Ménagerie de Versailles Man was the “audience to the spectacle of nature” (Baratay & Hardouin-Fugier 2004: 49) Not a ‘natural’ separation and organisation The architectural construction of the enclosures and the separation of species represented the taxonomic boundaries identified by the natural historians of the age “For the first time in history, the zoo is meant to divide & classify” (Senior 2004: 211)

11. Neil McPherson The Ménagerie de Versailles - Académie des Sciences Exhibition of animals by the public which could not normally be encountered But also: Anatomical study of dead animals Artistic representations of intimate anatomy The peintresanimale: Desportes, Nicasius, Boel painted each animal in vivo as it arrived at Versailles

12. Neil McPherson The Ménagerie de Versailles - Académie des Sciences “the Ménagerie itself was located at the focal point of a multitude of forms of classification, representation and order present in the Classical age. The architectural and classificatory formation of the Ménagerie captured man’s relationship with his Others, and the order of the natural world…From his position in the pavilion of the Ménagerie, man looked out over a vista that encapsulated the order of the nature, over the species of that world and their taxonomic separation as represented through the mind of man on the table of the natural world.” (McPherson 2010: 147)

13. Neil McPherson The Ménagerie de Versailles - Académie des Sciences Man was located beyond the natural world The centre point of an artificial separation and location of nonhuman animals The point of departure in the classification and organisation of nonhuman animals

14. Neil McPherson Problems with the zoological gardens Criticisms of zoological gdns – eg life expectancy of big cats “In a state of endless captivity, their lives, for the most part, turned into lingering deaths.” (Altick quoted in Bostock 1993: 29) The ‘liberation’ of Versaillies (1792)

15. Neil McPherson The Emergence of the Modern Zoo Zoological Society of London (1826) First zoo founded as a scientific institution Exclusive access to Fellows of the Society (or friends) Officially opened to public in 1846 (unofficially accessible since 1834)

16. Neil McPherson The Emergence of the Modern Zoo Stellingen Zoo (1907) Founded by animal trader and tamer Carl Hagenbeck(1844-1913) Showing seals in St Pauli (1848) to the first ‘open park’ zoo Bars replaced by moats – the illusion of almost direct contact Blurred the human/animal separation defined by the gardens

17. Neil McPherson Space & the Modern Zoo: The Human/Animal Interface How are zoos constructed: Natural and/or free-living conditions Semi-naturalistic enclosure Enriched semi-naturalistic enclosure Enriched non-naturalistic enclosure Fully naturalistic enclosure

18. Neil McPherson Space & the Modern Zoo: The Human/Animal Interface How are zoos organised: By taxinomic system - zoological relations By geographic origin By habitat By popularity By behaviour (see Mullan & Marvin 1999: 68)

19. Neil McPherson Space & the Modern Zoo: The Human/Animal Interface Zoos often driven by need to please customers rather than prioritise welfare of animals Visibility of enclosures Showtime Conflict between aesthetic of architecture and animal needs

20. Neil McPherson Space & the Modern Zoo: The Human/Animal Interface Aesthetics Lubetkin’s Penguin House at London Zoo Utility Carson’s Elephant House at London Zoo

21. Neil McPherson Space & the Modern Zoo: The Human/Animal Interface Naturalistic aesthetic – see work of David Hancocks Suspension of belief Avoids ‘prison’ view Enhances view of ‘natural’ environment Conservational and educational elements Zoos must be ‘story driven’ rather than ‘object driven’

22. Neil McPherson Space & the Modern Zoo: The Human/Animal Interface What is the primary role of zoos then? Story driven – conservationist, protectionist, anti-pollution, anti-hunting, anti-poaching Object driven – protectionist – conservationist breeding programmes Contemporary tensions

23. Neil McPherson Space & the Modern Zoo: The Human/Animal Interface “Zoos are a metaphor for our attitudes to and relationships with Nature. The critical importance of landscape immersion as a technique for zoo design is that it acknowledges, makes evident even, the importance and the values of natural systems. It creates opportunities for zoo visitors to experience something more meaningful than passively looking at an animal on display” (Hancocks 2001: 146-7)

24. Neil McPherson The institutionalised and docile body Goffman – the institution as total enclosed world – highly structured – little social intercourse – stripping of identity Foucault – surveillance measures and defines the normal – produces docile bodies – the prison/asylum (zoo) - disciplinary mechanism – animality and the asylum

25. Neil McPherson The institutionalised and docile body (Source Mullan & Marvin 1987: 38)

26. Neil McPherson The potential of science in the zoo Taxonomic knowledge Basic observational knowledge Reproductive-physiological knowledge Veterinary knowledge Genetic knowledge Behavioural knowledge Productionalknowledge To add to biological knowledge To assist care and breeding of animals in zoos To assist management and conservation of animals in the wild To assist the solution to human medical problems (Bostock1994: 164)

27. Neil McPherson The potential of science in the zoo Can scientific advance justify captivity in the zoo? Scientific research using animals not usually located in the zoo Is science little more than conservative breeding? Potential rather than reality (Bostock1994: 164)

28. Neil McPherson The educational potential of the zoo At centre of zoos’ vision Unlike museums, does not require particular cultural capital Extension of school Stimulate interest & curiosity Entertainment stimulates education

29. Neil McPherson The educational potential of the zoo However: Zoos role is not traditionally one of education Zoos mostly regarded as places of entertainment Regarded as ‘cheap day out’ Visitors require stimulation during visit Resistance of zoo workers to embrace visitors (see Mullan & Marvin 1999; Malamud 2007)

30. Neil McPherson The zoo as spectacle – the human spectator at the zoo: acritical view “The animal scrutinises [man] across an abyss of non-comprehension…The man too is looking across a similar, but not identical, abyss of non-comprehension. And this is so wherever he looks. He is always looking across ignorance and fear.” (Malamud 2007: 219-20)

31. Neil McPherson The zoo as spectacle Zoo is a passive encounter Requires minimal imagination Cheap vicarious pleasures Encourages anti-social behaviour Fails to generate creative experience (Malamud 2007: 164)

32. Neil McPherson The zoo as spectacle “Most zoos are peep-shows, the animals merely goods displayed to the public in return for hard cash” (Omrod quoted in Malamud 2007: 220) Animals are rendered docile and do not act as they would in the wild Animals often riled into action as people expect their ‘money’s worth’ Children (and adults) often see the monkeys as clowns and rattle bars and hit glass fronts until they perform (Malamud 2007: 164)

33. Neil McPherson The zoo as spectacle Zoos also attract individuals engaged in voyeuristic sexual behaviour The ‘dirty old men’ of the zoo (see Livingston 1974; Nimier 1993) Although most are not voyuers, the zoo encourages staring Staring is in a way the essence of the zoo (Bostock 1993: 100) The promised spectacle, however, disappoints

34. Neil McPherson The zoo as spectacle The threat of the gaze may render the animal fearful or immobile The animal may refuse to ‘be seen’ Therefore, feeding time exists as an unhealthy pleasure - demand for total visual experience The human experience of the zoo is demeaning to both human and nonhuman animal Television and Internet offer a palatable alternative (Malamud 2007: 164)

35. Neil McPherson The zoo as spectacle Acampora(2003) extends this view when he draws an analogy between the zoo and pornography ‘Natural’ traits eroded by captivity Relations are not natural – the animal that people want to see has disappeared, as has the human from the gaze of the animal Pornography distorts sex – zoo distorts animal relations Zoos desensitise – animals exist for our vicarious pleasure

36. Neil McPherson Summary The zoo has historically undergone a number of shifts in form The actual role of the modern zoo is questioned & contested The zoo constitutes a site for the cultural interrogation of both human/nonhuman animal and human/human relations “However misguided much of past (and even recent) zoo-keeping has been, it testifies to a great desire for close involvement with other animals” (Bostock 1993: 197) “The view in the zoo is not good enough, and never can be; but keeprs and patrons obsessively continue striving simply (and impossibly) to establish a more satisfying spectorial experience.” (Malamud 2007: 231)