This past week, I was thinking about themes and issues that kept coming up in our readings and class discussions. The main one that’s covered over and over is the issue of whether civilization or even humanity is a part of or is compatible with our cultural views of a perfect nature. But one thing that’s been prevalent in some of our materials that has had little discussion about it is that much of humanity tries to recognize things within nature that resemble us, not necessarily whether we’re compatible with the environment. I’ve especially seen this in the search for similarities in regards to the family unit.
In the excerpt from the Teddy Bear Patriarchy, the author Donna Haraway describes how the stuffed gorillas at the American Museum of Natural History resemble “a natural family of close human relatives”. Even though that is not the focus of her book, she still acknowledges that one thing people are bound to notice that the gorillas are very closely related to us. In fact, she even points out that Akeley wanted to kill only as many gorillas as it would take to form a “natural family,” and also took pictures of a group of elephants that obviously represented a “perfect family.” This sentiment is again reflected in the Cold War 1950s, where “Americans upheld the nuclear family as a safe haven,” and the shows of the time like Adventure capitalized on this, showing instances in nature that reflected the perfect family, and equating the Soviets with animals like bees that abandoned their mates and had no sense of family. We also see this need to look for the family unit in the films we were shown in class, like the Disney film that portrayed the polar bear family that everyone “awwwwwed” at. Again, we see the family unit, and we are engrossed, especially when that unit includes two playful cubs.
The question I have is why we are so intent on finding the model family in nature, even when nature is a artificially constructed entity like the taxidermy exhibit at the Museum. It appears to be a constant theme over time, but why is it so important? During the Cold War, people were afraid and could find solace in shows like Adventure, but Akeley lived during the late 1800s and early 1900s, and today we aren’t scared of the Russians and don’t need to find solace. I think that maybe the overall reason we look for the family in nature is to equate human society with animal society, and draw comfort from the idea that sometimes nature seems to reflect us instead of us always having to reflect and become more like a perfect wilderness. In other words, maybe our constant seeking of the family unit is a way of ensuring that we in fact are “natural” beings just like animals in nature, since we both divide ourselves into family units, and are therefore closer to nature than might otherwise be imagined.
In the excerpt from the Teddy Bear Patriarchy, the author Donna Haraway describes how the stuffed gorillas at the American Museum of Natural History resemble “a natural family of close human relatives”. Even though that is not the focus of her book, she still acknowledges that one thing people are bound to notice that the gorillas are very closely related to us. In fact, she even points out that Akeley wanted to kill only as many gorillas as it would take to form a “natural family,” and also took pictures of a group of elephants that obviously represented a “perfect family.” This sentiment is again reflected in the Cold War 1950s, where “Americans upheld the nuclear family as a safe haven,” and the shows of the time like Adventure capitalized on this, showing instances in nature that reflected the perfect family, and equating the Soviets with animals like bees that abandoned their mates and had no sense of family. We also see this need to look for the family unit in the films we were shown in class, like the Disney film that portrayed the polar bear family that everyone “awwwwwed” at. Again, we see the family unit, and we are engrossed, especially when that unit includes two playful cubs.
The question I have is why we are so intent on finding the model family in nature, even when nature is a artificially constructed entity like the taxidermy exhibit at the Museum. It appears to be a constant theme over time, but why is it so important? During the Cold War, people were afraid and could find solace in shows like Adventure, but Akeley lived during the late 1800s and early 1900s, and today we aren’t scared of the Russians and don’t need to find solace. I think that maybe the overall reason we look for the family in nature is to equate human society with animal society, and draw comfort from the idea that sometimes nature seems to reflect us instead of us always having to reflect and become more like a perfect wilderness. In other words, maybe our constant seeking of the family unit is a way of ensuring that we in fact are “natural” beings just like animals in nature, since we both divide ourselves into family units, and are therefore closer to nature than might otherwise be imagined.
Thanks for these ideas, Sam. I don't think it's possible to boil these complex issues down to one real answer, but your suggestion brings up the kind of "comfort" that seeing kinship ties in animals can bring to us. I suspect there will always be some cultural anxiety over the family unit, and it is interesting to consider the current lament for the decline of the "extended family"--exacerbated by the growing migration of people and joblessness. Maybe that's why we watch shows like "Meerkat Manor" so carefully!
ReplyDelete