Blog 3, Meerkat Manor, To what extent does the text anthropomorphize animals, and do you see this as problematic? Why or why not?

Season 1, episode 1 of Meerkat Manor is very anthropomorphic. Meerkat Manor constantly displays this quality in its descriptions of the meerkats show in the TV show. According to Greg Garrard in his book Ecocriticism, anthropomorphic is defined as a ‘term implying sentimental projection of human emotions onto animals.” Meerkat Manor is constantly projecting human emotions onto animals with its use of phrases such as babysitting, growing in confidence, teenagers, Knight in shining armor, and trying to evict the snake. These phrases are typically used for humans and normally are not applied to animals. Looking at the multiple times they call the meerkats watching over the newborn pup’s babysitters we see the beginning of anthropomorphic tendencies in the show. The newborn meerkats are called pups yet we are told the older meerkats are babysitting which implies a human taking care of their baby and gives us the sense that they have a job. The pups are also said to be growing in confidence. Confidence is a human trait that is being applied to the pups. Along with the human trait of confence is the term of teenagers given to the middle aged meerkats that are still considered young in the group. We are told that they are like kids and play around without much understanding of the risks they put their sibling in when they kidnap him. Meerkats are not actually in their teens because according to Kalahari Meerkat website they typically have a lifespan of about 10 years.  The older brother that rescues the pup is told to be a knight in shining armor for the young pup. While the meerkat is not really a knight we get the sense that he is kind hearted and looking out for him. The last phrase I noticed was when the group of meerkats were said to be trying to evict the snake. Evict normally used when a person is kicked from their home due to missing payments or the owner not wanting them to be there for some reason. The fact that the meerkats are evicting give you a negative feeling to the fact that they are trying to kick the snake out of a home he found.

The anthropomorphism in this show is not problematic because it is trying to give you an understanding of how meerkats live. While they may not necessarily have these traits you want to understand them and why they do things and in order to do so you try to relate them to yourself or something you understand. The phrases and terms they use give you the sense that they have these emotions and characteristics of humans that you can relate to and do so in a fascinating and entertaining way.

Works cited

Garrard, Greg. Ecocriticism. London: Routledge, 2004. Print.

“Meerkat Manor – S1-E1 – Part 1.” Animal Planet. YouTube. 2011. Web. 12 Feb 2012.<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-W0gwCiLas&gt;.

“Meerkat Manor – S1-E1 – Part 2.” Animal Planet. YouTube. 2011. Web. 12 Feb 2012.<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8qpAvdQreA&gt;.

“The Meerkat’s Life style.” Friends of the Kalahari Merrkat Project. 2007. Web. 13 Feb 2012.<http://www.kalahari-meerkats.com/index.php?id=lifecycle#c735&gt;

Read Full Post »

Blog 3: Anthropomorphism in “Meerkat Manor”

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.

Read Full Post »

Blog #3: How does the text depict human/animal relations? What is at stake in these depictions?

In Jack London’s To Build A Fire, it depicts a man and a husky dog traveling along the cold Yukon trail where the nature is depicted as being harsh. The text also shows that the man and the dog have different viewpoints on the cold. The man tests it out when he spits on the ground and realizes that the temperature is lower than fifty degrees below zero but then goes on to say, “But the temperature didn’t matter.” (2). However the dog’s point of view is shown when London writes, “Its instinct told a truer tale…” (3) and that “…It was seventy-five below zero.” (3). I felt like London was trying to make the dog seem smarter than the man but then contradicts the dog’s personification of knowledge by writing, “The dog did not know anything about thermometers.” (3). He then notes that the dog was able to know how cold the temperature was by writing, “…the brute had its instinct.” (3). Therefore, London is comparing how a human and an animal can perceive the differences what is considered cold, through instinct and ignorance.

Another thing noted were the stakes of the situation, both a dog and a man are out there in the cold with no one else around them trying to get to a camp but underestimating nature’s harsh climate. There is also a difference in morality between the dog and human’s relationship. The man wanted to kill the dog as a means to provide warmth for his hands but then London writes, “He realized that he could not kill the dog.” (12). This shows that the man had a sense of moral to him that made him believe he could not kill the dog. Also, when the man dies in the snow at the end of the story the dog stays with him for a while but London writes, “Then it turned and trotted up the trail in the direction of the camp it knew…”(15). The dog finally abandons its dead master for the sake of its own survival and shows no real connection to him.

Works Cited:

London, Jack. “To Build a Fire, by Jack London.” The World of Jack London 2012®. The World of Jack London. Web. 12 Feb. 2012. <http://www.jacklondons.net/buildafire.html&gt;.

Read Full Post »