Our discussion of animal symbolism and the "squint" it puts on our perception of animals reminded me of an issue I'd heard about a few years ago with regards to endangered species in... um, one of the tropical rainforests. So, there's this really endangered, horrendously ugly primate living in the rainforests. It's nocturnal and doesn't hurt anyone, as it sits in the trees all night eating bugs. The people indigenous to the area have been working with environmental groups to preserve the rainforest, protecting it from deforestation, as well as taking measures to protect the many endangered rainforest species -that is, all species except this one, ugly primate. Why? Because in this culture, the animal (gosh, I wish I could remember what it's called. An ayer-ayer, maybe?) represents evil. So it's ugly to begin with, but it's been associated with the spirits of the night for hundreds of years, and local tribal legends held that if it looked at you you were cursed.
Now, most of the people living here today don't believe in the magical, mumbo-jumbo anymore, but they just can't get past the symbolism and it's thwarting environmental attempts to protect the species. The people of this area just can't approach the fate of this particular species objectively because it holds such an immovable status, a permanent label in their psyche. I don't think this particular species and this particular people are a special case, either. So many of our preconceptions, of our internalized notions about certain animals dictate our attitudes toward them. It's without doubt that one of the reasons pandas have had such a successful comeback is because they're cute. People associate only loving, cuddly, fuzzy good thoughts when they think about pandas. Now, how much progress has the endangered dolloff cave spider made by comparison. Yeah, like none. Don't you think that this might be because the general public associates bad things with spiders? That perhaps spiders are connected with a sort of symbolism -even if unconscious- that demotes their esteem in our eyes? And it's not even particularly ugly, as spiders go, so I doubt it's truly an aesthetics issue, but rather one of an impulsive stereotype derived from our underlying symbolic associations between animals and ideas.
Just because something isn't "easy on the eyes" doesn't mean it isn't has important or any less important. Everything was put on this planet for a reason, no matter its size, looks or smells. Destruction seems to be a more a human trait as each day grows older. Humans seem to destroy more and more than save. As stated the animal seems to be no harm to us, but we disapprove of it because a create so ugly must be no good. Stop thinking with emotions.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that emotive responses toward ugly things get in the way, but the point that I was making was that our responses go beyond the emotional response. The symbolism that we often unconsciously attach to animals -ugly or otherwise- clouds our reasoning. This obstruction isn't a result of emotion, but rather of that innate tendency to stereotype that which we connect to a particular symbol. It's a failure on the part of our reasoning, not an interference of our emotions.
ReplyDeleteNow, I'm sure this symbolism can lead to an emotional response as well. Certainly, if we associate an animal with positive symbolism, we will react emotionally to it being harmed or be unabashed if we view it negatively (which may just have something to do with its being ugly...)