Annika Lee
AML 2410
Anthropomorphism is sometimes criticized, mainly by those who oppose the liberationist viewpoint, but if we do not appply human traits to animals it becomes “impossible to describe animal behavior at all” (Garrard, 138). Garrard also notes that “scientific researchers insulate themselves from moral qualms by rejecting as ‘inappropriate’ the descriptive language more usually used for human behavior” (Garrard, 138). After reading this, I continually questioned my response to Meerkat Manor.
In the first episode, the meerkats are highly anthropomorphized. The opening sequence of the show gives each member of the Whiskers family a name followed by a simple description such as “Youssarian with social problems” and “the naughty kids.” As I proceeded to watch the show, I found myself becoming attached to specific characters, especially “courageous little Shakespeare,” noting when he did something to live up to his description. For instance, when the meerkats discovered a poisonous snake in one of their bolt holes, the family worked together in an attempt to scare the snake away. Shakespeare was bitten twice, and forced to make the trek home alone. When the episode ended his fate was not revealed and I instantly wanted to know what had happened to him (Google informed me he survived), however, I kept wondering if I had been watching a documentary where Shakespeare was simply referred to as “the meerkat” and was left to draw my own conclusions about his personality, would I have really taken the time to find out what happened to him?
Seeing as the goal of a television show is to get the most viewers and highest ratings, giving the animals human characteristics is not problematic for Meerkat Manor. It gives the viewer a reason to watch the next episode: he or she will want to tune in to find out what happened to their favorite meerkat. Nevertheless, it is understandable why researchers would not want to assign names to animal subjects. One may develop an attachment to the animal and giving it a name only heightens this. A conflict of interest would occur, making it difficult for them to perform their jobs correctly.
I disagree that you think it is impossible to describe species behavior without the use of anthropomorphism. In Ecocriticism, it is shown that species can be described other ways. Scientists use language such as “a monkey is not angry, it is aggressive” (Garrard 138). This is the language that is appropriote to be used when describing animal behavior. People apply human characterstics to other species because it makes them more interesting. If Meerkat Manor was a television show that educated people about meerkat society while using the proper scientific language, people would not watch it. It wouldn’t be interesting to them. Anthropomorphism is not necessary to describe species, it is only necessary to make them interesting to the general public.
I agree with your statement that we have no other way to describe animals. We use language, something that is very human, to describe things, thus assigning human qualities to almost anything. Though animals, such as whales and prairie dogs, have language systems, these systems are limited to mating, danger, and food. Language, as human beings, allows us to be creative; something language systems in other species have not exhibited. You can’t describe an animal without making it more human because in order to describe them, you must use words, something we came up with.
I also agree with the statement that it is hard to describe animals without using human terms. It would be hard to compare ourselves to them and understand them and what they do. I also tried to think about how I would have felt about poor little Shakespeare if he hadn’t had a name and background. I feel like I possibly would not have found the scene where he walked home alone as saddening as I did. I’m glad you looked up whether or not he lived because due to the humanization of him, I was worried and wanted to know what ended up happening.
Just like my blog response I find that it is difficult to describe animals without giving them human characteristics. As far as this show goes it is useful to attach human emotions to the animals to attract the views like you stated. As emily pointed out you can use other terms without emotions attached but at the same time when you hear certian words like agressive you still think in your head words like angry, mean, and possible scary. So even though the words describes the animal without emotion I find that we still use emotions of the words to understand how they are acting.