ENLIVENING EXHIBITIONS Zoos, Open-Air Museums, and the History of Living Animals in Human Sceneries of Display
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ENLIVENING EXHIBITIONS Zoos, Open-air Museums, and the History of Living Animals in Human Sceneries of Display Wiebke Reinert, Kassel University In the following article, open-air museums and zoos are examined as enlivened multispecies spaces by connecting two recent threads of research, put in historical context: human–animal studies and exhibition studies, that both put the concept of relationality centre stage. This offers a slightly altered perspective on the history and entanglements of these institutions, exploring the crucial aspect of animating sceneries and enlivening these places. By way of conclusion I will use the mul- tispecies and exhibition context to reflect upon doing and undoing human–animal entanglements in time and space, past and present. Keywords: popular culture, open-air museums, zoo, historical animal studies, exhibition studies Exhibiting Human–Animal Relations garding nature and animals. The well-reputed jour- Zoological gardens and open-air museums are nal Nature stated recently that people learned more popular spaces of human leisure, offering the spe- about environmental topics, such as climate change, cial feature of watching and encountering living in museums and zoos than they ever would in the nonhuman animals. Museums and zoos are relevant classroom (Dance 2017). sites of the tourism and leisure industry, offering Open-air museums and zoos are certainly both recreation and entertainment; they house estab- quintessentially cultural places, but their compo- lished cultural practices of a particularly modern nents are also natural elements, not least the “living form of husbandry, are spaces of cultural learning collections” (Svanberg 2016; FRI 2017) of animals. and pleasure, display ensembles of plants, animate Historical animal studies and multispecies stud- beings and architecture, and offer synaesthetic ex- ies offer a productive perspective of these places as periences. Last but not least, their central themes are “spaces of interaction between humans and ani- environments in the broadest sense. Both are “places mals” and institutionalized “meeting grounds” of that enable embodied learning, key to helping audi- multiple species (Swanson 2015: 240; cf. Pearson & ences develop their sense of how they are inter-con- Weismantel 2010: 22). However, animals must not nected with physical environments” (Newell, Libby be mistaken as static supernumeraries to enliven & Wehner 2017: 5). Thus, they remain important smooth, “authentic” stories we like to tell each other mediums to spread perceptions and knowledge re- about a past, a version of nature, foreign lands, or Wiebke Reinert 2019: Enlivening Exhibitions: Zoos, Open-air Museums, and the History of Living Animals in Human Sceneries of Display. 15 Ethnologia Europaea 49(2): 15–30. © Author(s). our current ethics of sustainability and species con- is important to conceptualize these facilities and of- servation, but actors with their own lives, senses and fered frames as connected, multivocal, multispecies realities. spaces, in favour of an entangled history of space, Rereading historical sources from the early twen- animals and humans. It is noteworthy that even this tieth century, a time period crucial for the devel- scientific view, the change of points of view, “filters opment of popular culture (cf. Maase 1997), this through political discussions, popular culture, and contribution aims at putting zoos and open-air everyday conversations; all this becomes part of the museums in a broader context of modern “animal- contemporary zeitgeist” (Kaijser 2019). Open-air istic” exhibitions and leisure practices in general. museums and zoological gardens are just two of the While the history of zoos is commonly connected to many venues where knowledge and perceptions of urban sites, colonialism and exotic animals (giraffes, nonhuman animals are organized, performed, pro- polar bears or rhinoceros being emblematic repre- moted and disseminated (cf. ibid.). sentatives of “charismatic species”; DeMello 2012: In more recent museum studies, the “relational 53; cf. Baratay & Hardouin-Fugier 2002), open-air turn” suggests profoundly conceptualizing exhibi- museums are commonly perceived as rather “rural” tions as “connected, plural, distributed, multi-vocal, places, exhibiting domesticated or “local” animals affective, material, embodied, experiential, political, (species ranging from reindeer to rabbits). This dis- performative and participatory” (Grewcock 2014: 5). tinction parallels the split between Völkerkunde and The same holds true for human–animal relations Volkskunde, anthropology/ethnology and folklore and multispecies ethnography. As a relational eth- studies, remarkably. Areas of responsibility and nography (Desmond 2014; Kohn 2007), it pays atten- illustrative spaces for these sciences were created in tion to the various sensual, experiential, embodied, the nineteenth century. Animals’ housing at zoos connected, plural “worlds” or fields and entangle- have usually referred to spatially distant environ- ments of humans and animals, and conceives of ments, often from other continents. Animals in them as relational beings in a “shifting assemblage open-air museums, on the other hand, live in a holis- of agentive beings” (Ogden, Hall & Tanita 2013: 6), tic, historical scenery, featuring the local, vernacular in a scenery of multispecies contact zones (Kirksey & architecture of a bygone age. Helmreich 2010: 246). Thus, it is vital to interrogate My contribution seeks to put these almost hack- these humanimal spaces (Nayar 2014) as relational, neyed topoi of urban and rural into a relational con- considering the manifold actions of different social text, that is, they will be looked at together and with actors, and varying political, economic and cultural their nonhuman actors. The wide-ranging entangle- contexts (Grewcock 2014: 3). Finally, museums and ments of modern “amusement topographies” (Nolte the practice of curating are always based on a con- 2016: 7) have, so far, seldom been taken into account. cept of montage and create atmospheres between ob- A focus on animals opens a path to exploring these jects, generate an aura by staging an atmosphere that networks, since the living beings were circulating extends beyond the individual objects ( Bjerregaard actors in the nineteenth-century diverse landscape 2015), or, put in a multispecies perspective’s way, of leisure culture, as were their “cultural coatings” individual subjects. There seems to be a revived dis- (Marvin 2010: 59). This remains true until today. course on animals and human–animal relations as Practices of entangling and disentangling spaces and part of museum curating (e.g. May 2018; cf. Löhne, beings by allotting certain species to certain spaces Friedrich & Kiefer 2009; Stinn 2009), yet zoos seem (urban or rural, “natural” or human-made) are to have taken up the recent scientific discussions on further common characteristics of these institutions. human–animal studies to a lesser extent. At any rate, given their popularity, they offer effec- In order to determine the relationality of zoos tive framings and organize the human experience of and open-air museums and their respective mise- living animals in spatial narratives (Ito 2012: 189). It en-scènes of animals, I will first take a closer look at 16 ETHNOLOGIA EUROPAEA 49(2) the early decades of the establishment of zoological By the turn of the twentieth century, the famous gardens and the Swedish open-air museum Skansen zoologist Gustave Loisel listed Skansen among zoos during the nineteenth century. As a second step I and menageries in his monumental three-volume examine and interpret the presentations of animals œuvre Histoire des Ménageries, published in 1912. and interactions between humans and animals at Director Alarik Behm repeatedly published arti- these sites from a multispecies point of view. To cles on animal life in Skansen in the German zoo’s do so, I will try to connect two recent threads of journal Der Zoologische Garten and by the 1920s, the research: human–animal studies and exhibition institutions were listed under the same category of studies, which both put the concept of relationality “Vivaria” in the Index Biologorum, a follow-up of centre stage (cf. Marvin & McHugh 2014; McTavish the Zoological address book issued by the German 2013). In a third step and as a résumé, I will reflect Zoological Society (e.g. Behm 1905, 1909; Hirsch upon possible potentials of intertwining exhibition 1928: 373–374). The institutions shared the interest studies and multispecies studies, upon doing and in animal trade, practices of exhibition, and were undoing, and presenting multispecies entangle- connected via the very animals that lived in their ments in time and space. enclosures. Not least, there was a common need for fostering knowledge on husbandry skills. Concern- Zoos and Skansen in the Nineteenth Century ing the question of the animal “other”, Skansen also Even if seemingly different in their outlooks, open-air exhibited animals labelled “exotic”. Zoos for their museums and zoos sprung, so to speak, from very sim- part have always put “native” animals on display ilar zeitgeist. The onset of industrialization, a change just as well. Skansen and zoos alike could take up perceived and discussed as threat, became the coun- on trends of the modern “topography of sociability” terpart of a romanticizing perspective which promot- (Wurst 2011): since the end of the eighteenth cen- ed nature as “origin” and “wholeness”