The kind where animals talk and act just like humans.
This summer Madagascar was showing at Santee Lakes and I went with some friends. It was definitely funny, but zebras and lions are not best friends in any world but the imaginary world, and it may be funny to watch a giraffe fall in love with a hippo, but you know those kind of relationships don't work.
The Ape and the Sushi Master argues that animals do indeed have a culture, that they are capable emotions and capable of learning. They are definitely not machines.
In the section of Chapter 1 titled "Bambification," de Waal says that once we understand this, then anthropodenial becomes impossible and anthropomorphism inevitable" (71).
He cautions us against the types of anthropomorphism we see in our culture and cites the example of the grizzly bear who has his arm around his mate's shoulder as they enjoy a landscape. He says, "Since bears are nearsighted and do not form pair-bonds, the image was nothing but our own behavior projected onto these animals" (71). This is anthropocentrism.
In your post, clarify the term anthropocentrism. How does de Waal illustrate anthropocentrism? What examples can you give to illustrate this?
If at all possible, include the source for your examples in your paragraph(s).
Anthopocentrism considers humans to be most important and at the center of the universe. Because we are caught in this mindset, we often assign animals human characteristics so that we can better understand or relate to them. This assignment of human qualities to animals is known as anthropomorphism.
ReplyDeleteDe Waal illustrates anthropomorphism by including various examples for each type of anthropomorphism. First, he descibes the unscientific form, where he provides the example of the two bears watching the sunset together. Its obvious that bears wouldnt be able to take part in this act because they are incapable of focusing their eyesight on things such as the sunset. Next, he introduces the kind of anthropomorphism known as Kindchenschema, or baby-appeal, in which animals are given "enlarged eyes and rounded infantile features designed to evoke endearment and protectiveness."(72) Later, he describes satirical anthropomorphism in which certain animals' known behaviors are used to mock people and name them as being funny, stupid, or stubborn. For this category of anthropomorphism, de Waal includes the idea that most humans exhibit laughter while watching monkeys rather than any other animal at the zoo because we feel nervous and begin to recognize similarities between our species and monkeys. Finally, the author claims that naive anthropomorphism is the most common type because most humans are not very informed or well educated when it comes to animals, so we attempt to give them human qualities in hopes of understanding them better.
De Waal's statement of "As soon as we admit that animals are not machines. . . then anthropodenial becomes impossible and anthropomorphism becomes inevitable," seems completely true. As we begin to accept that we have a lot in common with other animals we cant help but try to understand these similarities, which leads to anthropomorphism.
Anthropocentrism can be clarified by that quote given about the grizzly bear.
ReplyDelete"Since bears are nearsighted and do not form pair-bonds, the image was nothing but OUR OWN behavior projected onto these animals." (71) Here he gives an obvious illustration to help clarify the term "anthropocentrism" to us.
I guess you can say its just like personification but a little bit aimed more towards animals. Anthropocentrism is still used today. For example, the Pixar movies always have animals or some sort of creatures thinking and acting like humans and how we would react towards situations. Giving animals a mind as if it were human. In the movie "UP" they had dogs that could talk through voice collars. In the movie they showed the dogs talked to the master as if it were human but also "catered" to the master cleaning up, making traps, serving dinner, etc…
Anthropomorphism thinks that humans are the most important thing and we are the center of everything. When people want to know more about animals, they give animals human characteristics known as anthropomorphism.
ReplyDeleteHe illustrates anthropomorphism by showing different examples for each type. He tells the story of the two bears watching the sunset showing this an example of the unscientific form. Then he shows Kindchenschema, or baby-appeal, in which animals are given "enlarged eyes and rounded infantile features designed to evoke endearment and protectiveness."(72) After that he then talks about satirical anthropomorphism where animals' known behaviors are used to make fun of humans. De Waal illustrates this with people going to the zoo to watch animals make fools of them selves because they are unhappy with themselves. He then states that naive anthropomorphism is most well known because humans gives animals human characteristics to better understand them.
De Waal's quote "As soon as we admit that animals are not machines. . . then anthropodenial becomes impossible and anthropomorphism becomes inevitable," seems true. As we begin to accept that we have a lot in common with other animals we cant help but try to understand these similarities, which leads to anthropomorphism. i agree with Ariel on this one. :)
well just with the grizzly bear he gives it away that only we could make that up for another animal or something that we think doesnt have feelings. anthropocentrism is bad and we should work against it. By the way im kind of lazy to read what other people say on the blog, and i sort of cheated cause i always google new words before i read the rest of the sentence so i did that with"anthropocentrism" but I would of concluded the same from the description of the grizzly bears anyways. Hope everyone had a great weekend and god bless :]
ReplyDelete--miguel
Like Ariel said above, anthropocentrism is where humans believe they are the center of everything. Everyone or everything is less than us. When you put animals into movies and give them human characteristic, you just try and make these animals fit into the daily life of a human. Not only is this wrong because these animals have their own daily life which may not be what we make them seem as, but you are giving people the wrong idea about animals.
ReplyDeleteDe Waal introduces this term into his book when he talks about the two bears watching the sunset together. This probably would never happen in real life, because as we talked about in class bears don't stay with one mate for too long. Also putting his arm around his mate isn't something bears usually do, this is a human characteristic put onto them.
He also talks about how we don't understand other animals and their way of being that we put what we do know onto them, therefore many of the things we make animals do are human things.
Anthropocentrism is the theory of view that humans believe that they are the central element of the universe. This implies that we regard all other creatures with the idea that they are revolving around us. When de Waal explains the bear putting his arm it's mate when overlooking a landscape, he explains that it they were simply imitating us. It was mentioned that this is not an ordinary action for a bear, so the only explanation can be that they were copying us.
ReplyDeletede Waal claims "The most common anthropomorphism, however, is the naive kind that attributes human feelings and thoughts to animals based on insufficient information or wishful thinking." (72). He follows this claim with illustrations of when humans assume feelings animals have during certain situations without any sufficient reasoning other than the fact that they believe that is how the animal is feeling. This is anthropocentrism because they attach human feelings to an animal simply because the animal is reacting how a human would when that feeling was occurring. de Waal gives many other examples of anthropocentrism, even though this is the most common type.
In this chapter, De Waal takes the time to explain and illustrate what we think might be one of his made up words, anthropocentrism. He uses the example of the bears and how the male has his hand over his “girlfriend” while they watch the scenery. This illustration is perfect for his anthropocentrism term. What this word means is that we humans believe we are the center of everything. Since we believe this we like to make everything around us to resemble the things we do. This example of the bear is one of many that can illustrate and clarify the term. I happen to have reads Jamie’s post in which she gives another example and quote from De Waals book. She talks about his mention of Kindchenschema, or baby-appeal, in which animals are given "enlarged eyes and rounded infantile features designed to evoke endearment and protectiveness"(72). I thought I’d bring this up because It automatically brought the image of the cat in the Shrek movies in which he does exactly what De Waal says. The cat is given enlarged eyes and is exactly designed to make it seem like a baby.
ReplyDeleteAnthropocentrism is basically where humans think they are the center of the universe. they feel like they are the center of all reality and everything revolves around them. This goes along with chapter one because De Waal's whole argument in chapter one is "we need to get over the fact that we arent alone culture wise and realize animals similarites with us. we need to stop reducing them and using anthropomorphism to see these similarities." (De Waal pg. 37) Humans dont want to think of sharing this world with another species that are like them. we like to think that we are the most advanced in the universe. the idea that another species has culture scares many people. So in chapter one De Waal is trying to convince us why we need to stop comparing animals to use and accept their true selfs.
ReplyDeleteThe term bamification gets brought up in chapter one as well. This is where we give animals the big doe eyes, human morals, and friendly personalities. We forget that bears are actually dangerous things when we see smokey the bear commercials. Watching Smokey talk about forest fires with his big eyes and pants on, makes him seem more approachable because he has human qualities. we forget that at any moment Smokey can eat us for dinner.
Hollywood is mainly responsible for this. Featuring Disney movies with friendly animal creatures that are considered friends. They out this image in our head that animals can never be like humans so they are mocking animals. it is considered a joke or entertainment to see animals acting like humans.
Anthroprocentrism is viewing humans as the center of reality. As others have posted, the center of the universe. Also Considering humans to be above everything. De Waal illustrates anthropocentrism numerous time throughout the section but one particularly caught my interest "Walt Disney made us forget that Mickey is a mouse and Donald a duck. Sesame Street, the Muppet Show, Barney: television is populated with talking and singing representations with little relations to their actual counterparts",(71). Throughout my childhood I viewed these character as human-like. As De Waal mentioned Walt Disney made me forget, simply because it was to entertaining. That illustration helped me clarify what anthroprocentrism is.
ReplyDeleteA more recent illustration of anthroprocentrism is my 6 year old brother watching a Nick Jr. animation show called The Backyardgians. They are animals such as penguins and hippos acting as young children. They go on advantages and sure their imaginatoins just as human children would do. As they sing and dance the viewers are being entertained. Therefore they forget that these cartoon characters are actually animals.
I think this is so true because anthropocentric according to dictionary.com means "regarding the human being as the central fact of the universe." In the movie Madagascar they are making it seem as if animals are being like humans talking and everything because we as humans think that we are the best species there is and they want to be like us. It is like we are kind of selfish and self-centered.
ReplyDeleteHis argument is that an open mind such as that of a young child can help society understand animal culture. Youthful innocence leads to new discoveries about animal culture, such as the young boy who was so fond of chickens and found them “worthy of recognition.” This is because a small child has not been through so much things so they act even in some ways similar to animals but when you grow to an adult they think they are superior to any other species.