The Spectacle of Nature:
The closing sentiments of Connor's Dissertation - An Exploration into the Ethics of Visual Appreciation of Animals in British Leisure. We've also recorded a podcast on this topic.
Perhaps the most apt way to demonstrate the ideas of inexorable curiosity and the affirmed subject is found in the following light anecdote…
There is an outwardly unremarkable yet blissful pub in Bristol which, aside from a motley assortment of patrons and fine stout selection, is home to several dozen cats. The “cat pub” is of modest local fame and many people head to see the felines as they climb the beer taps, sleep across the bar and trip people on their way to the record player. Yet the barkeep always made sure to keep the upstairs door ajar, with cats able to escape the calamity and intrusive (if well-meaning) hands of punters. Two things relating to this piece are made apparent. The first is the overwhelming desire to witness animals; to watch them interact with one another and to interact with them… even if this sometimes risks their comfort. The second was the open door. Existing as a casual balance between two worlds, it acted as a release valve to preserve “the natural” upstairs (if only its symbol), and ultimately maintain the animal’s interests, whilst, in our interests, spectating their lives.
Animal life will always be a spectacle, one that we will inevitably have a close relationship with. While the animal will always be a worthy spectacle, history warns us that it may not always be regarded as a worthy ethical subject.
There is an outwardly unremarkable yet blissful pub in Bristol which, aside from a motley assortment of patrons and fine stout selection, is home to several dozen cats. The “cat pub” is of modest local fame and many people head to see the felines as they climb the beer taps, sleep across the bar and trip people on their way to the record player. Yet the barkeep always made sure to keep the upstairs door ajar, with cats able to escape the calamity and intrusive (if well-meaning) hands of punters. Two things relating to this piece are made apparent. The first is the overwhelming desire to witness animals; to watch them interact with one another and to interact with them… even if this sometimes risks their comfort. The second was the open door. Existing as a casual balance between two worlds, it acted as a release valve to preserve “the natural” upstairs (if only its symbol), and ultimately maintain the animal’s interests, whilst, in our interests, spectating their lives.
Animal life will always be a spectacle, one that we will inevitably have a close relationship with. While the animal will always be a worthy spectacle, history warns us that it may not always be regarded as a worthy ethical subject.
The dissertation is available to download and read in its entirety here:
|
|
Ultimately, I set out exploring Christian attitudes to the natural world, largely expecting to find chauvinism and despotism... of course what I found was far more nuanced in the theological idea of stewardship. That said, there is a lot of apparent Christian justification for exploitation of the environment and an ontological distinction between humans and animals justified by biblical text. This is partially a misreading and is exemplified most clearly by the blood sports of the Middle Ages and up until the Victorian period. Darwinism seems to have shifted these concepts around I explore that a little. I wanted to understand the difference between what appeared to be the direct contrast to the worst attitudes, exemplified by activities like bird-watching and documentaries like Blue Planet. Whilst still "enjoying animals" they appear to be affirming an intrinsic worth of animals life and less active or invasive in finding entertainment from them. That said, they're not without their own smaller problems...