Human of the Forest, Are You Like Me? (Co-written with Ital Halevi)

 

“Human of the Forest, Are You Like Me?”: A Visit to the Biblical Zoo

While we had many interesting experiences at the Biblical Zoo, we have chosen to focus on our experience of the visit to the orangutan enclosure. We shall describe this experience, and then analyze it based on Lockwood’s types of anthropomorphism.  

Unlike most enclosures, the orangutan enclosure could be reached from the main road only through a unique path; a long series of wooden ramps and stairways surrounded by bamboo walls on which signs appeared at regular intervals, presenting pictures of orangutans and facts about them. Going up this path, which was isolated to avoid any distractions, has built tension, excitement, and anticipation for meeting the orangutans , of which one could not get a glimpse until the very end of the climb. 

The signs deserve special attention because they seemed to prompt a comparison between humans and orangutans. The first sign explained the etymology of the animal’s name; “orangutan” means “Human of the forest” in a native tongue. Another sign reported that orangutans are born weighing 1.5 kilograms, showing a baby orangutan. Another sign stated that orangutans live up to 35 years in the wild and up to 50 years in captivity, showing a “smiling” grown-up orangutan. Yet another sign said that “orangutans cleverly use large leaves as umbrellas during the tropical rainy season.” In the final bend before the enclosure, we were welcomed by a life-size cardboard cutout of an orangutan standing on its back limbs and sticking its tongue out somewhat playfully. Towering to the height of an adult human, this cardboard stood next to a more comprehensive sign, including a prominent infographic, which emphasized facts about primates. Central facts such as front facing eyes, large brains, and opposable thumbs seemed to prompt further comparison between humans and apes. This series of representations was gradually eliciting a sense of striking similarity between orangutans and humans. 

At last, we reached the orangutan enclosure itself, which was not very large. Its ground was slanted down to the wooden trail and glass walls, not unlike a theater stage. But unlike actors on stage, the orangutans recognized us.Beyond that mere recognition we could not say what, if any, mental relation they had towards us. Yet, surely influenced by the preparatory exhibition, we stayed there to watch them for a long time, caught up by the awareness of their near humanity.

Yet, there was a contrast between the “educational” build-up and the actual apes. The orangutans were mostly lying around, covering themselves with used T-shirts like blankets - not to mention that they never stood up like their cardboard counterparts. In fact, they didn’t do much until 10:30, their announced feeding time. An ultra-orthodox family came to watch the show, and we took a step back to allow them their ”front-row” spots near the glass. As soon as the apes noticed the zoo employees coming from above to disperse food onto the net “roof” of the enclosure, they abandoned their “blankets” and rushed up there, demonstrating inhuman acrobatic skills. A Zoo employee who stood nearby us was commentating on the feeding scene. He emphasized that the orangutans were not, in fact, human, and treating them as such may be dangerous, for an orangutan "can rip a grown man’s arm off as a sort of joke." He also emphasized that orangutans are solitary creatures in the wild. In spite of that, in the enclosure they were gathered in what initially seemed like some sort of orangutan “family”. No sign along the path indicated any of these rather inhuman aspects of these apes.         

Contemplating our experience, we found it useful to analyze the zoo’s presentation of the orangutan enclosure using Lockwood’s different types of anthropomorphism, especially the superficial, explanatory, and applied types (Lockwood, 1986: 190-191). We first noticed that prior to our visit, we had little knowledge about orangutans as animals, but in contrast were much more familiar with their famous allegorical anthropomorphic representation of King Louie from Disney’s adaptation of the Jungle Book. King Louie is especially known for singing the song “I Wanna Be Like You”, in which he expresses to Mowgli his desire to become more like a human being. 

In contrast to this prior baggage we came with, the preparatory educational presentation confronted us with the superficial anthropomorphism: the interpretation of “animals’ behavior or temperament… on the basis of superficial qualities… unrelated to those that are actually involved.” (190) We believe that the long series of pictures of orangutans that visitors are likely to interpret as “smiling”, “fooling around”, and “concentrating”, was a deliberate strategy of the zoo designers’ to intensify the visitors’ spontaneous bias toward superficial anthropomorphism, to convince them that orangutans are closer to humans than one might have thought. Thus, we believe that the zoo experience, quite successfully, conveyed an orangutan manifesto different from that of King Louie: “Like it or not, I am already a great deal like you.” 

We now hold that the uninterrupted encounter with the apes themselves initially elicited in us explanatory anthropomorphism, which after a while was replaced by a more thoughtful, applied anthropomorphism. Following the preparatory exhibition, our immediate response to seeing the orangutans was to explain their behavior as if they were humans: their cuddling in blankets made us think that they are tired or just lazy, and we interpreted the female’s proximity to the lying male as care or affection. Yet, after a while, being aware of the contrast between the theoretical exhibition and practical experience, we could let go of our explanatory anthropomorphic prism and make way to “our personal perspective on what it is like to be a living being to suggest hypotheses about what it is like to be another living being.” (191) Putting ourselves in their place allowed us to see their predicament: maybe they are covering themselves in blankets because unlike us, tightly wrapped in our scarves and jackets, their skin is bare in this chilly morning; maybe they do nothing because they are imprisoned in this narrow cage, forced to share their limited space with unwanted company inside and outside; maybe they are just lying around because they are depressed rather than just tired, being stuck in an agonizing limbo. 

Our experience and analysis convinced us that although we could not abandon our anthropomorphic prism and comparative thinking altogether, critical conscious awareness of the different types of anthropomorphism and their consequences allowed us to let go of the human measure of our comparison and make way for a more compassionate comparison based on our common denominator with the animals – being living creatures. 

Bibliography

Lockwood, R. (1986). Anthropomorphism is not a Four-Letter Word. In: Fox, M.W., Mickley, L.D. (eds) Advances in Animal Welfare Science 1985. Advances in Animal Welfare Science, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht.

 

 

 

 

Dear Omer and Itay,

This is an excellent, well-written paper. You combine well between theory and personal experience and draw a very interesting conclusion. I also appreciate your ability to integrate literary means into the paper – especially the build-up of tension at the beginning.

I subtract 2 points from the grade because of the paper’s length.

Grade: 99-2=97

Alon

---

 [AI8]Here the discussion of Elizabeth Costello on Nagel’s “What is it Like to be a Bat” is also relevant. We feel empathy toward animals, which allows us to know what it is like to be a bat. Yet this empathy is not necessarily based on things that we and animals have in common.