University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

In this nature: Culture, place, and attitudes toward marine animals

(USC Thesis Other)

In this nature: Culture, place, and attitudes toward marine animals

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Copyright 2000 IN THIS NATURE: CULTURE, PLACE, AND ATTITUDES TOWARD MARINE ANIMALS by Unna Inger Lassiter A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (GEOGRAPHY) August 2000 Unna Inger Lassiter Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3018099 Copyright 2000 by Lassiter, Unna Inger All rights reserved. ___ ® UMI UMI Microform 3018099 Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90007 This dissertation, written by UNNA LASSITER under the direction of h.fS. Dissertation Committee, and approved by ail its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re quirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Dean of Gmduate Studies D ate.. Aug.ua .8 .. 2 Q . Q . Q . DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Chairperson Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Dedication To my grandmother, Ebba Tenna Nielsen (1912-1997) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Acknowledgments I wish to thank my academic advisor Dr. Jennifer Wolch for helping me to keep this dissertation on track through her speedy, insightful and clear advice. I am most indebted to her, and also to Dr Michael Dear, for reminding me that academic practice should be theoretically grounded and relevant to everyday practice. My Dissertation Committee, Dr Laura Pulido and Dr David Sloane, gave me thoughtful advice and comments to improve this work. Many thanks to Sea Grant and Sea Grant staff, Sue Yoder, Phyllis Grifman, Lyndell Whitley, Judith Doino Lemus, and Jean Todisco. I am ever so grateful to Dr Rod McKenzie who generously cheered me on through the Ph.D. process, and to colleagues Youni Hackli, Rob Wilton, Dallas Dishman, Mary Roche, Geoff De Verteuil, and Kevin Romig for their encouragements. I had a real ally in Billie Shotlow who helped navigate through the bureaucracy involved in being a graduate student. Also, I am indebted to my dear friends Alex McCrae and Kellie Dawson for their boundless kindness, and to Bill Christiansen and Ron Dodson for their encouragements. Finally, I thank my mother, Lilian Nielsen Claeys, and father, Pol Quevy; I have been fortunate to have them as role models. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iv Table of Contents Page Dedication ........................................................................................ ii Acknowledgments .............................................................................. ill List of Tables........................................................................................ ix List of Photographs............................................................................ x Abstract ............................................................................................... xii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION: CULTURE, PLACE, AND ATTITUDES TOWARD MARINE ANIM ALS............................................................................................ 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................... 1 1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ...................................... 7 1.3 PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY..................................................................................... 9 1.4 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING ATTITUDES TOWARD MARINE A N IM A LS.............................................................. 16 1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY......................................... 23 1.6 DEFINITIONS OF TERM S..................................................... 25 1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION 27 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW: HUMAN-NONHUMAN ANIMAL RELATIONS AND GEOGRAPHY........................................................................... 29 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. V 2.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................... 29 2.2 TRADITIONAL VIEWS OF ANIMALS IN GEOGRAPHY..................................................... 31 2.2.1 ZOOGEOGRAPHY AND BIOGEOGRAPHY .... 32 2.2.2 ANIMALS AND THE BERKELEY SCHOOL OF CULTURAL GEOGRAPHY.................................... 35 2.3 ANIMAL GEOGRAPHY TODAY......................... 39 2.3.1 SOCIAL THEORY AND ANIMALS..................... 40 2.3.2 THE ENTRY OF ANIMALS IN GEOGRAPHY... 45 2.3.3 ANIMAL GEOGRAPHY: GAPS AND PROBLEMS ............................................................ 52 2.3.3.1 Changing perspectives on race, ethnicity, and culture.................................................................... 53 2.3.3.2 The contest between science and culture.................. 63 2.3.3.3 Animal geography and animal related organizations................................................................ 68 2.4 CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE DISSERTATION . . . 69 CHAPTER THREE: ATTITUDINAL RESEARCH AND ATTITUDES TOWARD ANIMALS ................................ 71 3.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................... 71 3.2 OVERVIEW OF GENERAL ATTITUDES RESEARCH .............................................................. 73 3.3 ATTITUDES TOWARD ANIM ALS...................... 77 3.3.1 KELLERT’S RESEARCH ON ATTITUDES TOWARD ANIMALS............................................. 78 3.3.2 RESEARCH ON ATTITUDES TOWARD ANIMALS IN THE 1980s...................................... 81 3.3.3 THE RESEARCH ON ATTITUDES TOWARD ANIMALS IN THE 1990s........................................ 83 3.3.3.1 General attitudes research........................................ 84 3.3.3.2 The Kellert legacy..................................................... 85 3.33.3 New concerns in social theory.................................. 89 3.4 CONCLUSION......................................................... 92 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vi CHAPTER FOUR: FOCUS GROUPS AND INTERVIEWS: SELECTION, PROCEDURE, AND INTERPRETATIVE APPROACHES............................ 98 4.1 INTRODUCTION...................................................... 98 4.2 FOCUS GROUPS AS RESEARCH TOOLS 101 4.2.1 TRENDS IN FOCUS GROUPS............................. 102 4.2.2 USING FOCUS GROUPS........................................ 105 4.2.2.1 Standard focus group practice.................................. 105 4.2.2.2 Critical focus group research.................................... 107 4.2.3 DESIGNING THE FOCUS GROUP APPROACH 112 4.2.4 INTERPRETING CROSS-CULTURAL FOCUS GROUPS ............................................................... 117 4.2.4.1 Designing the questions and coding schem e 119 4.2.4.2 Using the computer software (NU*DIST) and the emergence of animal-related themes............... 127 4.2.4.3 Identifying cultural models.................................... 129 4.3 INTERVIEWS AS RESEARCH TOOL............... 130 4.3.1 TRENDS IN INTERVIEWS.................................. 131 4.3.2 USING INTERVIEWS.......................................... 133 4.3.3 DESIGNING AND CONDUCTING INTERVIEWS ....................................................................................................................... 136 4.3.3.1 Building an inventory of A O O s............................. 137 4.3.3.2 Interviewing MAOO m anagers............................. 145 4.4 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 149 CHAPTER FIVE: THE MEANINGS OF MARINE ANIMALS: RESULTS FROM FOCUS GROUPS . . . 152 5.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................... 152 5.2 THE PARTICIPANTS AND ANIMALS IN G EN ERA L............................................................... 155 5.3 THE PARTICIPANTS AND MARINE ANIMALS Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. v i i ......................................................................................................................... 167 5.4 ATTITUDES TOWARD MARINE ANIMALS ......................................................................................................................... 185 5.5 CONCLUSIONS...................................................... 191 CHAPTER SIX: MARINE ANIMAL ORIENTED ORGANIZATIONS, CULTURAL DIVERSITY, AND ATTITUDES TOWARD MARINE AN IM A LS 196 6.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................. 196 6.2 SELECTING AND RECRUITING THE MAOOs TO BE INTERVIEWED............................................. 200 6.3 ORGANIZATIONAL PR O FILES........................... 208 6.4 RESPONSES AND FINDINGS ............................... 220 6.4.1 CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND MAOO DEMOGRAPHICS..................................................... 220 6.4.2 OUTREACH EFFORTS............................................ 226 6.4.3 CULTURALLY-RELATED PRACTICES AND ATTITUDES................................................................ 232 6.4.4 PAYING ATTENTION TO C U LTU R E................. 239 6.5 CONCLUSIONS........................................................ 254 CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION................................ 260 7.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................. 260 7.2 RESEARCH FINDINGS........................................... 264 7.2.1 GENERAL FINDINGS: A CONTRAST OF VIEWS ......................................................................................................................... 265 7.2.2 CULTURE PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE FORMATION OF ATTITUDES TOWARD MARINE ANIM ALS............................................... 267 7.2.3 SPECIFIC PROCESSES ENHANCE THE INFLUENCE OF CULTURE.................................. 271 7.2.4 SOME OF THESE PROCESSES ARE PLACE-BASED....................................................... 273 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. viii 7.3 IMPLICATIONS OF TfflS RESEARCH ................ 274 7.4 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH................................................................ 277 7.5 SUMM ARY................................................................ 279 References cited..................................................................... 282 Appendices............................................................................. 299 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. List of Tables Table 4.1: Table 4.2 Table 5.1 Table 6.1 Taxonomy of Attitudes toward Marine Animals (partly based on Kellert, 1993, 59) Number and Percentage of AOOs by Category and Subcategory....................... Individual Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Focus group Participants Taxonomy of Selected Marine Animal Oriented Organizations (MAOOs) . . . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. X List of Photographs 1.1 Early morning surfers at Carillo State B each 11 1.2 Residential development along the Los Angeles Coast: Naples Isla n d ................................................. 12 1.3 Los Angeles Harbor: Passing freight ships loaded with containers............................................................ 12 1.4 Santa Monica Pier, complete with fishing pier and a ferris wheel....................................................... 13 1.5 Mural around the Long Beach Arena: Whaling Wall # 33 by W yland.................................. 13 1.6 Seashells for sale (Long Beach Marina).................... 14 5.1 Advertising‘guaranteed’ whale watching to u rs 169 5.2 A display of California sea lions at the Los Angeles Z o o ................................................................................ 174 5.3 UCLA Ocean Discovery Center on the ground level of Santa Monica P ier................................................... 174 5.4 Boys fishing off of Redondo P ier.............................. 177 5.5 Fishing boats docked at Redondo Pier...................... 178 5.6 Live crabs for sale on Redondo P ie r........................ 179 5.7 Japanese and Mexican seafood restaurants on Redondo Pier.............................................................. 180 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. xi 6.1 A troop of girl scouts observes tidepool creature at Leo Carillo State Beach............................................. 210 6.2 Seagulls and brown pelicans at Leo Carillo State Beach............................................................................. 210 6.3 Entrance to Cabrillo Marine Aquarium (designed by architect Frank Gehry to resemble a biology lab) . . . 211 6.4 Visitors listen to a docent at the tidepools inside Cabrillo Marine A quarium ......................................... 212 6.5 Marine Mammal Care Center logo............................. 216 6.6 A Marine Mammal Care Center veterinarian explains how spiny fish can get stuck in the throat of sea lio n s .................................................................. 217 6.7 Sea lion pups are recuperating in pens at the Marine Mammal Care C e n te r................................................. 217 6.8 A seagull is anxiously waiting for these fishermen to catch a fish .................................................................... 230 6.9 Sea lions ‘hanging around’ the fishing boats in San P e d ro ...................................................................... 235 6.10 Chovie Clipper, a major attraction for local sea lions ......................................................................................................................... 237 6.11 Brown pelicans with high hopes................................. 238 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Abstract The relationship between cultural diversity and attitudes toward marine animals is examined in this dissertation on the basis of an understanding of culture as a place-based process, and a focus of the local level where attitudes are socio-culturally mediated (between individual and global levels). This research employed more qualitative approaches than standard attitudes research, in order to more directly examine explanation for attitudes. Such explanation was premised on recent research in animal geography, that highlights the role of identity formation and disenfranchisement in defining how animals are considered. In a first part, focus groups with inner city low income women of different ethnicities (African American, Latina, Chicana, Chinese, Filipina) were organized in Los Angeles, to identify the spectrum of attitudes toward marine animals, and dimensions of urban diversity (such as culture, class, socio-demographics and ethico-political stances). In the second part, interviews were conducted with managers of local Marine Animal Oriented Organizations (MAOOs) to clarify how they are positioned vis-a-vis cultural factors and difference. Analysis showed that culture plays an important role in the formation of attitudes toward marine animals. Specific processes of identity formation emerged, related to oppression and to privilege, and were expressed in cultural contests. Science was key in this struggle for dominance, as was cultural relativism, and these processes were highly dependent on place. This research exemplifies how more explanatory understandings of attitudes can be provided, demonstrates the importance of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. considering culture in the process of attitude formation, and helps to explain the persistence of non mainstream practices and attitudes. Some of the novel aspects of this work also include a focus on the attitudes of inner city ethnically diverse women and of managers of a range of MAOOs, and an emphasis on marine animals. The research was also carried out through approaches rarely used in attitudes toward animals research. Finally, the conceptual framework was significant in its distinct geographic emphasis on place. Keywords: Attitudes, Geography, Marine animals, Cultural diversity, Racialization Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER ONE- 1 INTRODUCTION: CULTURE, PLACE, AND ATTITUDES TOWARD MARINE ANIMALS 1.1 INTRODUCTION Over the last few decades, many places and their geographies have radically shifted due to the globalization of capitalism. The movement of people (whether intermittent, temporary or permanent), the global trade of goods and ideas, and the pace of communication have sped up to produce breathtaking rates of exchange. These processes are transforming more societies faster than ever. One fundamental result is an increase in the cultural diversity of many places. People’s heightened experience of cultural diversity is reshaping their understanding of who they are and what they believe in, as individuals and together as societies. These changes also bring together in geographic places people holding widely divergent views about nature. Beliefs about appropriate nature-society relationships among residents of a given city or region are likely to have formed in places and life circumstances vastly different from the ones in which they may now find themselves. For instance, people may originate from rural regions where food, shelter, and medicines were directly garnered from their work with plants and animals. When they Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 arrive in cities, their notions of nature may not ‘match up’ with the fact that nature is suddenly just a comer lot strewn with trash, or that Muscle Beach is not a place to go find mussels! And, while they may be sympathetic to environmentalist, animal welfarist or animal rightist philosophies they encounter (in schools, media and other venues), these notions may never quite seem ‘real’ or fully legitimate to them. This may be, for instance, because they hold other attitudes toward animals1 and other aspects of nature, or because their position as ‘outsider’ makes them more critically aware of deep contradictions in Western nature-society relations. Indeed, ‘traditional’ nature-society beliefs of some in-migrants to urban areas (whether from rural hinterlands or non-Westem countries) may be most at odds in Western urban centers. Here for example, one encounters the greatest contrast between the privileged lives of some companion animals (privileges that the majority of the world’s people can never hope for), while cows, pigs, and chickens live invisible lives of retched misery in feed lots and factory farms. In other words (and at the risk of perpetuating a dichotomy that is not so absolute in real life), people who come from non-Westem and/or rural cultures may find their Western urban counterpart’s ways of thinking about nature quite strange. Meanwhile their own views about and ways of knowing nature may be unwelcome in their new urban environment. Their beliefs and practices toward animals, for instance, may be discredited as unsophisticated, 1 I use the terms ‘animal’ and ‘nonhuman’ interchangeably, whilst acknowledging that the use of the term ‘animal’ (along with ‘human’) may unfortunately reenforce our dualistic ideas about nature and culture. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 backward or cruel. As a result, they may decide that, once out of their socio-cultural context of origin, their attitudes toward nature are less--or more— important. Indeed their process of acculturation, as well as their potential marginalization as outsider, may imbue their beliefs and behaviors with changed meaning. It is little wonder then, that people with different ideas about nature, who coexist in the same city, are challenged by one another’s different experience and understanding of nature-culture relations. It is also likely that they potentially stand to endure or provoke cultural misunderstandings and conflicts about mainstream policies and practices, or are unwittingly used as pawns in ideological conflicts related to the environment. At the same time, as diverse people come together, they are affirming their different cultural identity and are gaining some political ground. ‘Ethnicity’ and ‘culture’ have been recast as ‘multiculturalism,’ to be celebrated rather than shed in the struggle to assimilate. Efforts to recover a cultural history and identity have also engendered an exploration of how people deemed ‘different’ are marginalized and/or exoticized. Moreover, ‘other’ cultures may be thought of as more authentic, more popular (and thus more democratic), and if ‘mixed’ with Western culture, more resilient. The postmodern reconfigurations of ‘otherness’ in the West still show a romantic view of others and ultimately a persistent ambivalence about difference. Nevertheless, a new appreciation for cultural difference is growing, one that is at least superficially politically supported, and also one that has allowed some groups to reclaim their identity as a people. Whether promoted by Westerners or non-Westemers, the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. affirmation of culture and difference is having a significant impact on nature-society relations.2 Postmodernism has prompted not only a reconsideration of culture, but also a problematization of what nature is and should be. Especially since the Nineteenth Century, nature has been the primary purview of Modem science. Such an ‘appropriation’ has been in contention at different times. In her dissertation that compares Victorian antivivisection and modem animal rights movements, Landes (1984) for instance, wrote: “[historical and contemporary data suggest that [both these movements] represent a response to anxiety engendered by scientific discovery, technological innovation, knowledge about animals, and the popular perception of each.” Today however, Westerners seem to be coming to a new understanding of their nature-society relations. The latest reappraisal began in the 1960s, when marine biologist Rachel Carson and others sounded the alarm about drastic anthropogenic environmental changes. This call resonated with many, not only because effects were tangible and immediate, but also because Western society was undergoing an invigorating wave of democratization, economic well-being (Lawrence, 1995, 75) and rise of secular science (Elder, Wolch, and Emel, 1998a, 192) that promoted popular engagement with new ideas about the environment. I speak as member of mainstream society because I am white, and have been granted many privileges associated with this status. Yet I am a European immigrant who finds herself at odds with many mainstream Anglo-American beliefs. I understand this as typical and use it to remind myself of the porosity of all labeling. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Also, many Westerners, especially those living in cities, suburbs and other urban enclaves, have been distanced from more rural and utilitarian views of nature. They now seek the outdoors on a recreational basis, rely on the company and love of companion animals, and have generally become more sensitive to environmental issues. Today these sentiments have extended to public criticisms directed against biotechnology and the ‘denaturalization’ of nature, while some have even proclaimed the “end of nature” (McKibben 1990). Nevertheless Western society accounts for an overwhelming share of global and local resource extraction, environmental degradation and species extinctions.3 Altogether, progress for progress’ sake, which in the Twentieth Century was epitomized by science and technology (with industrial capitalism at the helm), is increasingly criticized as deeply rooted in the masculinist and post-colonialist project of Modernity. Today, in the midst of unparalleled economic expansion, modernist ideals of progress have been assaulted due to the demands that Post-Fordist economies make on people and environments around the world. These challenges strike at national sovereignty, as some of the protests of the 1999 Seattle World Trade Organization Meeting exemplify. While the jury is still out on whether this kind of criticism will make substantial inroads, some environmentalists and animal rights supporters have sought out other forms of nature- 3 To a certain extent, nature-society relations are also being reappraised in many other regions of the world. In part this is due to the rise of autonomous grassroots environmental action and to environmental movements becoming more global in their reach of influence. In a survey of ‘Third World grass roots environmental organizations and recent cross-national opinion surveys,’ Brechin and Kempton (1994) found that “concern for the environment is not simply a product of postmaterialist cultural shift...” (245), and that “[ijnstead [...] environmental values have become integrated with materialist values” (265). Real changes in nature-culture relations are taking place. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 society relations, even nature-society relations that have emerged independently of Western science, from such sources as ethnosciences. Detractors of this movement to re-create nature-society relations and reify culture have equated it with a neo-Romantic infatuation with nature and difference (Philo and Wilbert, 2000, 8). Indeed these efforts to withdraw nature from the exclusive hold of science may have consequences that we have yet to fully comprehend, and critics prophesize a dangerous epistemological shift, a flirt with superstition, irrationality, and undemocratic systems (Pinkerton, 1997, 2).4 This is just one of the tensions in the current reconfiguration of nature-culture relations. Clearly we stand at a critical juncture in how these relations will be redefined across both Western and nonWestem countries. The topic of this dissertation is the relationship between culture, place and attitudes toward marine animals. How attitudes are impacted by culture and the role of place in setting norms of behavior and beliefs, remain largely unknown. Yet such understandings seem critical given that culture (in part) frames identity. In this respect, the focus on attitudes toward marine animals is revealing, because people are likely to know and have experienced marine animal-related practices, such as fishing, and to have been swimming or walking on the beach. Yet the marine environment as a whole has been neglected in the social sciences, and in attitudes research more specifically. For a sharp critique o f the Western intelligentsia’s support of indigenous science movements, see for instance "Against Social De(con)struction of Science: Cautionary Tales from the Third World" by Meera Nanda (1997) Monthly Review, 48/10, 1-20. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 In the remainder of this Chapter, I state the problem that this research will address. Then I present the purposes and objectives of the study, followed by a description of the conceptual framework guiding the research. Finally, I discuss the scholarly contribution this dissertation research stands to make. 1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The relationship between culture and attitudes toward marine animals is complex. Our inability to come to grips with the processes that play into this relationship, has meant that we have often been ineffectual in remedying harm done to marine animals, whether caused by ‘stubborn’ attitudes, or by harmful practices so normalized that we fail to notice their destructiveness. We have arrived at the point where the degradation of the marine environment has now reached worldwide proportions and where the situation can no longer be ignored. At the same time, factors such as immigration have made once-homogenous places more diverse, and have brought together people with different views about nature. Lastly, due to scientific discoveries and greater awareness of environmental vulnerability in the face of rapid anthropogenic change, expectations of nature-culture relations are changing. This state of affairs may well engender more conflicts between people over relations with animals, reduce participation of some groups in debates about the environment or animals, or lead them to be co-opted into causes— such as by becoming recreational Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 fishers in a State where Fish and Game officials are worried over the steady decline of sport fishing. We must endeavor to better understand how culture and attitudes toward marine animals are linked in particular places. This clarification of culture- and attitude- related processes must center on how human identity and conditions of marginalization play into these inherently place-based dynamics. Without knowing how important culture is to the formation of attitudes toward marine animals, or how different perspectives on nature-society relationships shape perceptions of human difference, practices that harm marine animals and their environments will continue. Moreover, without this understanding, we will have lost an important opportunity to comprehend how culturally-specific attitudes toward animals may be connected to racialization. At the heart of these issues are questions of boundary-making, both in the construction of the divide between humans and animals, in how this is dynamically reconstructed in the course of people’s experiences in place over time and away from the origins from which they emigrate. It is also related to how people of a particular culture view others on the basis of their different animal practices and attitudes. Understanding this process will enable us to better appreciate the relationship between culture and attitudes, and how attitudes and practices can become (or be perceived as) a vehicle for stigmatization and racialization. In terms of attitudes toward marine animals, this is Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. especially important because the stakes are high and, as we shall see, the views very divergent. 1.3 PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The purposes of this research are to explain how the formation of attitudes intersects with cultural beliefs and practices, and to examine how this contributes to the construction of difference that can polarize people. This research is also intrinsically place-based, in that people’s culture depends on place, where they were bom and grew up, where they live now, and whether they feel ‘at home.’ With this understanding we will be better able to reconsider the role of culture in fashioning misunderstandings and conflicts that relate to marine animals. My specific objectives are to: (1) Determine if attitudes toward marine animals vary by culture, and if so, how; (2) Assuming that there are, indeed, attitudinal variations, identify key processes by which culture and place can impact these attitudes. (3) Illustrate the ways in which cultural differences in attitudes toward marine animals may be implicated in the marginalization and/or racialization of various groups in society. My premise is that diverse population subgroups living in the urban coastal zone have varying cultural traditions with respect to nature/society relationships, including Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10 attitudes toward marine animals. I anticipate that they hold a wide variety of attitudes toward the environment in general, and marine animals in particular. I expect that some of these ties to culture are place-based, and may be linked to processes of marginalization. I have focused this research on the geographic locale of Los Angeles County. Los Angeles (as I will refer to it from now on) is ideal in that it is located along the coast of the Pacific Ocean, which is accessible to the diverse population of the region. Los Angeles’ physical environment is multi-faceted. It is framed by deep canyons that extend into the coastal waters, with some remaining marine terraces, cliffs, islands, sandy and rocky beaches, wetlands and lagoons, rocky tidepools and estuaries. The coastline is home to many marine animals that can be readily seen, including nearshore, offshore and pelagic birds; mammals like sea lions, dolphins and migrating whales; fish like leopard sharks, barracudas and rockfish; and a host of tidepool animals including sea urchins, sea cucumbers and sea stars. The seventy four miles of the Los Angeles coastline are for the most part developed, with residential subdivisions, roads, an international airport, oil refineries and the San Pedro and Long Beach harbors (see photos 1.1 and 1.2). The coastal zone also includes national and state parks, aquaria, piers, marinas and beaches, that provide recreation opportunities for residents and tourists (see photos 1.3 and 1.4). These opportunities include boating, biking sunbathing, swimming, surfing, fishing, and beach sports like Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 1 volleyball (see photos 1.5 and 1.6). Altogether about sixty two million visits are made to the coast yearly (State of California, 1997, 207). The largest share of these visits are by Los Angeles residents, who themselves form this country’s foremost socially and culturally diverse urban population, with about thirteen major ethnic groups being represented and over ninety different languages spoken in the city’s schools (Jencks, 1996, 48). Photo 1.1 Early morning surfers at Carillo State Beach Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12 Photo 1.2 Residential development along the Los Angeles Coast: Naples Island Photo 1.3 Los Angeles Harbor: Passing freight ships loaded with containers Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13 Photo 1.4 Santa Monica Pier, complete with fishing pier and a ferns wheel 1.5 Mural around the Long Beach Arena: Whaling Wall # 33 by Wyland Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 Small Foxtail Shells 1.6 Seashells for sale (Long Beach Marina) This social, economic, and cultural diversity of population is one reason why the Los Angeles region is ideal given the purposes of this research. Another is that because the Los Angeles coast is visited by so many people, and because so many animals can readily be seen from the shores or from a fishing or whale watching boat, this location is ideal as well. Marine ‘events,’ including cultural events are often in the media, which regularly reports on Fishing issues, stranded whales, toxic effluents polluting the Santa Monica Bay, abalone poaching, grunion runs, and beach clean ups. Los Angeles is also a good site for this research because the attitudinal processes at play here would in all likelihood be similar to those operating in other diverse coastal cities. Finally, Los Angeles was also selected for practical reasons (I live in Los Angeles). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15 My intention is that by focusing upon Los Angeles, I will be able to better understand a variety of factors that influence attitudes toward marine animals, especially cultural and place-based factors. I hope that by clarifying how place plays a role in normalizing (or not) practices and attitudes, and how this shapes the construction of ‘otherness,’ I will explicate the impact of culture on attitudinal formation. In the end, I intend to clarify the influence this has on the geographic understanding of place and culture, and participate in fostering a new understanding of human-marine animal relations. With this work, I wish to promote a nature-society rapprochement that is neither based on an essentialization or denaturalization of animals. I believe that both processes are intrinsically and profoundly demeaning of people and animals, and wish to show how this is so by unpacking how differing nature-society relations undergird relations between diverse people. As with other animal geographers, my objective is to help develop and bring about an agenda that is both anti-racist and non-anthropocentric (Elder, Wolch, Emel, 1998b, 87-88). I set out to accomplish this by addressing how attitudes toward marine animals emerge from cultural norms; what intervening factors shape and reshape these attitudes; how cross-cultural views fuel larger social debates and conflicts; and finally, how some local efforts try to shape attitudes toward marine animals, and to deflect the cultural conflicts involved. My investigation was based on a two part methodology. First, I used a focus group approach to clarify how culture and attitudes toward marine animals are related. These Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 discussions detailed a range of practices and attitudes of some of Los Angeles’ urban and ethnically diverse populations. They also clarified culture-based practices and cross-cultural views, especially those that can potentially fuel larger social debates and conflicts. Thus they allowed me to examine attitudinal variables such as the urban setting and its cultural diversity, social norms of conduct and mainstream practices, cultural rituals (of food, religion) and gender roles. Second, I interviewed experts and leaders of organizations relating to marine animals. These interviews permitted me to characterize the organizations’ relationship to local populations, in particular culturally diverse subgroups, in terms of mission and program strategy. They also informed the research by clarifying how such organizations mediate various attitudes. I focused on the cultural issues that leaders and experts identify as most problematic. Both focus groups and interviews gave the research tangible evidence of culture-related practices and attitudes toward marine animals and, of local responses to these practices and attitudes, in a particular and significant place. 1.4 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING ATTITUDES TOWARD MARINE ANIMALS This research is based on a distinctly geographic perspective, which considers space and place as key to the formation of culture. Indeed, this perspective highlights the role of place as a key dimension of attitudes toward marine animals. Here I consider how places have shaped people’s attitudes, according to local culture and nature-society Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17 relations. Global, local and individual contexts of influence on attitudes are incorporated in this research, in order to understand how attitudes are negotiated across various terrains of signification, and this in the context of Los Angeles (see Figure 1.1). However, in this study I focus most specifically on the local context of attitudes, where cultural influence is more perceptible and likely to directly influence attitudinal formation. The social context of attitudes is at the heart of this research, and I hereby describe some of the constitutive elements of this interrelated context. These have been organized in three categories, namely the global, local and individual contexts. First, the global context of attitudes is itself composed of three main and interrelating structural forces. These forces are (1) economic and political trends; (2) general nature-culture trends and traditions; and (3) social movements about animals and the environment. Economic and political trends currently center around economic globalization. Globalization has affected human-animal relationships in many ways, but especially by intensifying modes of production, such as raising or catching more animals faster for food. In terms of the marine environment, the fisheries for instance have gone through a quantum leap in the last twenty five years in their ability to find, catch and bring large quantities of fish to port, or raise them through aquaculture. Economic factors have also made illegal poaching of protected species, such as sea turtles, both more attractive and reliant on a complex illicit network of distribution. A local example of this was reported by Frederick Cole, deputy chief of the California Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18 Figure 1.1: Conceptual Framework of the societal contexts of attitudes toward marine animals S C A L E ! C O N T E X T S tru c tu ra l Forces: E conom ic a n d Political T rends G en eral N a tu re -C u ltu re T rends and T ra d itio n s Social M ovem ents ab o u t Animats an d th e Environm ent G L O B A L M A O O s as M ed iatin g O rg a n iz atio n s S ocio-C ultural C haracteristics L O C A L Individual C haracteristics: Basic E nvironm ental v alues K now ledge o f M arine A nim als Species Preference In teractio n s w ith M arine A nim als IN D IV ID U A L PU B L IC ATTITUDES TO W A R D M A R IN E ANIMALS Fish and Game Department’s enforcement branch, who exclaimed: “[wjorldwide, abalone is almost like cocaine trafficking [...] The way it’s laundered and shipped can be similar to a drug cartel” (Bailey, 1999, A3). Other intensifying economic activities include oil exploitation, increased maritime transport, and coastal development which has reduced nesting/spawning sites as well as contributed (along with agriculture and livestock production) to ocean pollution through run-off. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19 Relating to this economic globalization are general nature-culture trends and traditions whereby humans feel justified to use marine animals in a variety of ways, including ways that are highly invasive, unsustainable and destructive. The meteoric rise of commercial and multinational fishing fleets have resulted in worldwide fisheries depletion, habitat degradation (through trolling, oil and noise pollution, and debris that trap animals), and declining public oversight of fisheries and transport ships. In terms of marine animals this has led to a state of emergency, whereby 1998 was pronounced the Year o f the Oceans by the United Nations, in light of the systemic degradation of the coasts, reefs and oceans. The trade in aquarium fish has also increased and is depleting the waters of Southeast Asia of certain species. And while sportfishing, whale watching, and tourism have become more important resource bases for declining small scale fishing cultures, the intensification of these activities has also taken a negative toll on both culture and marine animals. Furthermore, as people move they bring with them cultural practices that may not be suitable for the sustainability of the new environment they are in. This is critical as they more often than not relocate in urban centers which are inherently stressed environments. Meanwhile the contemporary social movements about animals and the environment that emerged about forty years ago, have achieved worldwide reach. Some of these organizations such as Greenpeace were spurred by concerns about marine animals, particularly whales and fur seals, and continue to highlight the plight of marine animals. Their early focus on charismatic species helped them achieve a high level of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20 popular support that has since matured into a growing awareness of human impacts on the environment. This is in turn influencing national and international regulatory agencies, defining both conservative and progressive political agendas and bringing about exceptional legislation in the U.S., Canada, Australia and Western Europe to curb pollution and protect select species of marine animals. These movements are based on a range of political, economic, ethical and social perspectives, including conservationism, environmentalism, and animal welfare and animal rights philosophies. As shown by the recent international campaign to ‘free Willy,’ a whale that had been held captive in a derelict Mexican theme park, their impact is quite significant although such campaigns and the laws they have helped pass (in particular to protect marine mammals and some endangered species) have not been without detractors5. At the other end, the individual context of attitudes consists of a person’s basic environmental values, knowledge of animals, species preference, and interactions with marine animals. These factors have been the object of most attitudinal research, including how they influence attitudes toward marine animals (Whitley 1998; Kellert 1999). Activities that vary greatly according to education, race, country or region of origin, and other socio-demographic characteristics, such as being a volunteer at an See for instance, in a report on the future of California’s marine resources, McHale (1997, 318) who writes: “The federal Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) provides complete protection to marine mammals in the US waters regardless of their environmental impact or effect on other marine populations [...] effectively granting each individual marine mammal with ‘sacred cow status’.” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21 aquarium or fishing for food, can significantly impact the individual context of attitudes (in terms of knowledge of marine animals or species preference, for instance) and this has been shown in attitudinal research. The local level of influence is the mediating context. It consists of (1) the socio cultural characteristics that influence this mediation, and (2) the marine animal oriented organizations (MAOOs) that mediate contact between marine animals and people. This context is especially related to characteristics and manipulation of place by various means and to different ends. Socio-cultural characteristics that may be related to attitudes toward marine animals are ethnicity, socio-economic class, education, gender, nature-society background and country of origin, and are themselves partly constituted of the populations’ place-based construction of cultural identity. Some of these variables’ influence on attitudes have been isolated and examined in traditional attitudinal research. However, they are rarely considered dynamically or within the context of place, or relatedly, of culture. This is especially significant because with global capitalism, the local context of animal-society relations has been (differentially) impacted by bringing together people and cultures, through international migrations and other cross-cultural contacts. Along this line, this context may also be defined by the particular ‘mix’ of socio-cultural diversity that exists in different places. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22 Some zones of interactions between humans and marine animals have been specifically fashioned to promote marine animals, and these include commercial for- profit and not-for-profit venues.6 The non-profit sector of these organizations, which I specifically term MAOOs, include aquaria, and rescue centers that respond to the needs of humans and marine animals to various degrees. They may also serve as links between economic and conservation interests such as the California Department of Fish and Game or the regional office of the National Marine Fisheries Service. MAOOs set norms for patterns of human-marine animal interactions, by molding the extent of exposure that urban residents have to marine animals, and by creating a variety of images of animals through publications and media exposure for instance. Western nature-culture relations are also understood to have been defined dualistically and thus that, human-animal relationships have been constructed on this premise. This hierarchical contest for human dominance of the natural world has nearly entirely precluded the existence or validation of ontological spaces ‘in between’ where human and nonhuman species might interconnect. This ‘hyperseparation’ (Michel, 1998, 164- 5) was prompted by Rationalism and cemented by modem physical and positivist science. Meanwhile, the Marxist social-constructionist critique has subsumed the nature-culture relation as intrinsically, and exclusively, social (ibid., 167), thus leaving out animals. But as much as our understanding of nature-culture relations have been 6 Nonprofit organizations may serve commercial interests, such as the Aquarium o f the Pacific in Long Beach, which as with many aquariums built in the 1990s, was conceived within the framework of a downtown redevelopment project. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23 shaped by both ‘hyperseparation’ and Marxist ‘incorporation’ (Plumwood in Michel, 1998, 167), it is also known that at the same time, nature-culture relations are defined by the recursive tension between the politico/economic structure(s) and individuals acting as agents within this system (ibid., 167). This dialectical understanding of nature-culture relations supports the theoretical framework of this research, in that attitudes toward marine animals are understood as being produced by— and producing— a recursive relationship between politico/economic structure(s) and human agency (and to some extent animal agency). This conceptual framework has been used in a similar fashion, by Wolch (1996), Whitley (1998), and Michel (1998). Most studies have looked at individual contexts of influence on attitudes. With this study I focus on the local context of influence on attitudes toward marine animals. Again Los Angeles provides an ideal setting for this investigation, because the processes at play are apt to be exemplified in a variety of conditions, according to both the diversity of people residing there and many types of MAOO operating in the region. 1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY This research is significant because it clarifies the dynamic impacts of culture and place on attitudes toward marine animals and provides an understanding of the formation of these attitudes in an urban and culturally diverse context. At the moment Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24 little is known about this influence, particularly in terms of the role that is played by cultural diversity and place on shaping attitudes. Yet culture is a powerful process that is likely to be involved and Cunningham (1995) noted that “[m]any questions regarding the human use of non-human animals are begging for cross-cultural investigation” (90). This neglect has had important consequences for human-marine animal relations and for the elaboration of strategies to minimize cultural misunderstandings and strife about all animals, and harm to marine animals and environments. In addition, not much academic research has been done so far about MAOOs, especially rescue organizations. Attitude research has focused on individuals and their attitudes, while research on organizations has yet to consider animal-oriented groups. Nonprofit sector research, for example, has emphasized health and welfare related groups rather than animal-oriented groups. These organizations may be sensitive indicators of the human interest in animals and in turn they may shape attitudes in powerful ways, but their relationship to attitudes has yet to be investigated. Also, conflicts relating to specific harmful animal-related practices emerge from time to time, such as the recent debate over the sale of live turtles and frogs in Chinatown food markets (Bustillo, 1999, A22). These conflicts can reinforce patterns of racialization. Also they may involve animals that are threatened or endangered, like the brown pelican. As I show, these conflicts are of grave concern to coastal managers on a daily basis, and they foresee a rise in these incidents due to increased population, and heightened public attention to animal related issues. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25 Lastly, this research contributes to the current and timely reinsertion of animals into geographic analysis. Through its focus on place, cultural identity and attitudes, this research will provide a more fully contextualized understanding of relationships between humans and animals, in a spatial context. This work will advance the understanding of how humans create ontological boundaries between people and animals, and between human groups. Thus this work will also contribute to new ways of understanding nature-society relations as deeply related to questions of human equity, and by that, induce new approaches to a more harmonious coexistence between humans and between humans and animals. 1.6 DEFINITIONS OF TERMS Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to address certain ambiguous terms that are critical to this study, namely ‘attitude’ and ‘culture.’ I will discuss both at greater length in the literature review (Chapter Two) but wish to briefly situate how I use them before going into a more complex discussion. ‘Attitude’ is a central focus of concern in social psychology, anthropology and marketing, that has come to mean an individually held belief that is learned according to one’s experiences, and socio-economic and place-based cultural context. This term is often used interchangeably with ‘belief or ‘value.’ But ‘belief indicates a conviction based on faith or trust in a particular system of meaning, while ‘value’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26 more broadly indicates the moral and/or relative worth of something, such as merit, importance or usefulness. Today, the term ‘attitude’ is used less, in part because of continuing difficulties in satisfactorily explaining what constitutes an attitude. I chose to use it rather than the other terms however because the term’s meaning is located between ‘belief or ‘value’ and is anchored in a substantial body of research. My use of the term comes with a caveat that its meaning is far from fixed, and that one of the objectives of this research is to clarify a dynamic element constitutive of attitudes, namely culture. The term ‘culture’ suffers from even greater ambiguity than ‘attitude.’ It has generally been taken to mean the ways of being and living of a group of people. But the social context of the ways of being of peoples ‘other’ than ‘us’ have been saddled with hierarchical judgements as to class and race, and ultimately ‘human worth.’ In order to clarify how stigmatization and ‘othering’ are inserted into the process of speaking and thinking about others, recent considerations of ‘culture’ have centered their critique around the social construction of culture and its empowering potential for redefining one’s identity. This focus on identity is generally taken to mean that ‘culture’ is self- ascribed. The term ‘culture’ is related to the term ‘ethnicity’ but they are not necessarily interchangeable. ‘Ethnicity’ means a distinct human group that shares a language, history, and culture, and is generally ascribed by others. In this postmodern era, with high rates of mobility and the Internet, there is greater flexibility in one’s ascription of culture. This ascription is today generally regarded depending on context. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27 Finally, with this study, it is important to note that my emphasis is not on culture per se, but rather on the role of culture as a process that critically intervenes in another process, namely attitude formation. Thus I not only understand ‘culture’ as self ascribed and in a state of dynamic contest, but also as a vehicle for a way of being, a way of being that is place-based and one that varies with place. My focus on process may appear to subsume place as ‘simply’ as a cog in the wheel of culture and, to an important extent, place is recursively related to culture. Important differences in place, between rural and urban places for instance, define experience and directly impact human-nature relations, relations which become integrated with culture. And places are inherently hybridized due to the layering of culture ‘superimposed’ on them. But today place must necessarily also be understood as playing a key role in the performance of the struggle for economic, political and cultural dominance. Together these ways of understanding place undergird this research. 1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION The dissertation proceeds with the literature review in Chapter Two. This literature review covers the geographical literature on nature-society relations, as well as the relevant literature on culture and ethnicity, and an important cross disciplinary debate involving the most recent contest between culture and science. Chapter Three is focused on trends in research on attitudes. This debate highlights critical issues for the future of attitudes research, including this research. In Chapter Four, I present the two Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28 methodologies (focus groups and interviews) of this investigation, their strengths and limitations, how they were employed and how interpretations are substantiated. I also detail the process of selection of MAOOs for interviews, by offering an overview of the animal related institutional background they are part of. Li Chapter Five, I present the analysis of the focus group discussions, in terms of the recruitment of the participants, their general attitudes toward animals, interactions with marine animals, and attitudes toward them. In Chapter Six I present results from interviews with MAOO experts, highlighting my selection of interviewees, their demographics, outreach efforts, opinions about the public’s culturally-related practices and attitudes, and assessments of culture as a factor in their organization’s mission. Finally in Chapter Seven, I conclude by reviewing the research’s operationalization and discussing findings within this context. I then argue that culture plays an important role in attitudinal formation, that specific processes enhance this influence, and that some of these are place-based. I also show that there are direct consequences to this dynamic relationship. I conclude by highlighting the significance of these findings for animal geography, the study of race and racialization, and for attitudes research. This is followed by a series of recommendations for future research, in terms of the development of new frameworks to understand attitudes and racialization, and of pragmatic solutions to stop harm to both people and animals. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER TWO- UTERATURE REVIEW: HUMAN-NONHUMAN ANIMAL RELATIONS AND GEOGRAPHY 2.1 INTRODUCTION Human-nonhuman relations are widely discussed in the popular press. One can find books ranging from field guides and nature books to cat mysteries, and bestsellers on the emotional lives of canines, bees, giant squid, ants or elephants! There is irony in this growing fascination with animals: now that we dominate and no longer fear them, or see them kill one another, we are free to marvel at their intelligence, beauty, feats of adaptation, and exotic difference. This appeal has also been accentuated by their presence in the news: we read about their rarity; are puzzled and thrilled when we hear that a wild animal has wandered into the city; and we delight in their ability to communicate with us. This new perspective on animals as friends rather than foes has also fueled a surge of academic scientific research on human-nonhuman relations. At the same time, a radical swell is lifting animals out of science’s strict sphere of concerns, into the social sciences and in research agendas in anthropology, history, sociology, psychology, and geography. The topic of animals is a recent arrival in geography. Animals had been present in the concerns of cultural geographers (mostly in the Berkeley School of cultural geography) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30 before the 1960s, but these concerns were of a radically different nature than those of animal geographers today. Berkeley School cultural geographers concentrated on human societies and the role that animals and plants played in them, while today the focus stems, in a large part, from an animal rights position, with animals (rather than humans) at the center. This current emphasis is also radically different from that of zoogeographers, who have devoted their studies to the taxonomy of nonhuman species and to dynamics of animal populations at different scales. Their perspective has antecedents that predate that of the Berkeley School and are currently rooted in science, and ecology in particular. The presence of animals in geography has consisted of different parts that mostly lack in mutual congruity. However this history is especially marred by lengthy periods when there was no concern for animals, despite increasing societal attention to them. Today, animal geography (both because of and despite being issued of a political position) stands to make innovative strides in the understanding of animals in human societies and in promoting greater justice for both humans and animals. The following literature review on animals and geography has four parts. In Part Two (Traditional animal geography) I consider geography’s earliest interest in animals, namely zoogeography. Then I examine cultural geography’s contribution to human- nonhuman animal relations beginning in the 1920s. In the 1960s, with the waning of traditional cultural geography and the advent of positivism in geography, the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31 disciplinary position of animals shifted yet again, and I discuss this. In Part Three (Recent trends: Animal geography) I focus on the current reemergence of animals in the field. While this focus is recent, it is already poised to significantly contribute to both society (human and nonhuman) and the field at large. I review the major themes of this reemergence and end this part by identifying three gaps of this literature. Finally, I present the contributions this dissertation stands to make. 2.2 TRADITIONAL VIEWS OF ANIMALS IN GEOGRAPHY The traditional view of animals in geography closely reflects popular sentiments and scientific developments of the times, beginning with a concern for where animals could be found (in zoogeography), extending to the role they have played in human cultures (in cultural geography). While the interests of these subfields sometimes meshed, their epistemologies drew them apart and, in the case of cultural geography, nearly out of existence. By the 1960s, when the destructive impacts of humans on nature were coming to light, neither subfields were able to participate in a meaningful way to new debates on human-nonhuman animal relations. In the following sections I recount geography’s early interests in animals and the disciplinary contexts of these interests. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2.2.1 ZOOGEOGRAPHY AND BIOGEOGRAPHY 32 The history of animals in geography must begin with an understanding of the vital contest for finding resources (at first animal, then mostly plant and mineral resources) that has characterized many societies, but especially Western societies over the last four centuries. This contest has had a global reach and is political and deeply imperialistic. Thus von Humboldt’s explorations of Central and South America in the early 1800s had at their roots a ‘discovery’ of nature that was inherently defined by a long-standing colonial framework. This colonialist project shaped zoogeographic knowledge (the study of animal world distributions and taxonomies), as well as defined early interests in animals. As British geographers Driver and Rose (1992, 4) put it1 : “[c]olonial authority depended in part on military force, but [...] it also resided in the desire to catalogue and classify all that was seen and heard; [and] knowledge became power.” Geography was critically relevant in this effort, and it is thus little surprise that early geographic interest in animals was deeply colonial in its nature, by having at its origin an inherently objectifying impulse that placed humans and nonhuman animals on a hierarchical continuum. Subsequent zoogeographic efforts divested themselves from the deterministic and racist significance of their early work, by focusing on ‘place’ and embracing a more scientific emphasis. Thus in 1939 Hartshome defined animal geography as studies 1 And they credit Michel Foucault and Edward Said for shaping their thoughts on this. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33 “concerned with the difference in faunal equipment of the different lands” (128). Later the theory of continental drift contributed most of all to this systematization, with elaborations on zoogeographical regions, theories of animal dispersals, global glaciation, evolution, land bridges, and island environments, as demonstrated in Wilma George’s 1963 duly titled Animal Geography. This literature considered only wild animals. However, along with a scientific emphasis some important biases have shaped biogeography. Capturing both scientific and popular imaginations, and importantly shaping Western attitudes toward the environment over the last forty years (Kempton Boster and Hartley, 1995, 51), is the alluring notion that equilibrium is at the heart of all natural relationships. This view was introduced in the 1960s, with Odum’s ecological perspectives in 1959, and island biogeography thereafter by Preston in 1962, and MacArthur and Wilson in 1967. Significantly, these theories were reliant on particular understandings of space and scale and biogeographers have substantially contributed to support them. But biogeographers have also been especially influenced by the idealized natural relationships that were thought to exist in nature, and that these simple and mutual relationships could be found. When this has proved difficult to show, they (and ecologists at large) have responded by simplifying and narrowing their studies to focus on smaller and smaller ‘units’ that could be quantified e.g., studies of arthropods in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34 caves, mites on mice, and flies on dead snails2. Despite a sustained criticism of this effort in biology (beginning with Simberloff in 1974), these microstudies form a large part of the mainstay of biogeography today, and the subfield is mostly ‘populated’ by biologists. As Philo and Wolch (1998, 111-112) recently described: the natural-scientific bent of this zoogeographical version of animal geography conspired to leave it saying little about animal interactions with human society ... The human dimension is introduced as an unwanted and alien intrusion, which remains wholly untheorized. At the same time the animals themselves tend to be regarded with a detached scientific eye as things utterly unlike humans. Cast as purely natural objects to be tracked, trapped, counted, mapped, and modeled, they are assumed devoid of any ‘inner life,’ any form of experience, consciousness or sociability, which might be worth taking seriously (106). In a 1997 session of the Annual Meeting of the American Association of American Geographers (Fort Worth) that was convened by Duane Griffin of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, biogeographers advanced that humans should be incorporated in their understandings of nature. While this momentous occasion has not yet brought about significant changes in biogeographical research, it does highlight a new awareness in the natural sciences. Indeed ecology’s emphasis on equilibrium has been sharply and specifically criticized3 for factoring out humans, and for viewing humans and human impacts on (the rest of) nature as unnatural interventions (Wagner et al., 1995, 139-145). This view rested on powerful (but long unacknowledged) Western From a list cited in Shafer, 1990, 14-15. For reviews see Botkin 1990; Shafer 1990. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35 religious beliefs about the repudiation of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden (Merchant 1980), on Cartesian scientific dogma about human difference— and superiority— (Evemden, 1992, 98), and on the clear evidence that, indeed, humans are ‘fouling their nest’ (unlike animals, it was thought). The resistance to consider nature as inclusive of humans has had some important consequences, in wildlife management for instance (Wagner et al. 1995, 139) and is slowly being shed. A case in point is presented by Jacobson and McDuff ‘s 1997 article entitled ‘Training Idiot Savants: The Lack of Human Dimensions in Conservation Biology” that laments the perseverance of this bias in the education of scientists. A similar broadening has also yet to be achieved in biogeography. 2.2.2 ANIMALS AND THE BERKELEY SCHOOL OF CULTURAL GEOGRAPHY Geographers have long argued that nature-society relations, including relations between humans and nonhuman animals, are or should be at the heart of the discipline. And yet the period during which the study of nature-society relations was paramount in the discipline passed about forty years ago. This was the heyday of the Berkeley School of cultural geography, with Carl Sauer as its leader. Influenced by anthropology and ecology, the Berkeley School focused on how cultures co-evolve with their physical environment, by following in the footsteps of German anthropologists.4 For an early example see Man and Nature (1939) by Carl Sauer. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36 Cultural geographers saw culture as a tool for transmission of knowledge. In their search for unspoiled culture, they often focused on origins, by paying close attention to the archeological record and by going back to ‘primordial man.’ For instance, Sauer believed that the beginnings of humanity were on the seashore, because it offered a munificent landscape in which culture could develop: “it gave the congenial ecological niche in which animal ethology could become human culture” (in Leighly, 1965, 309). Cultural geographers also tried to retrace the sources and subsequent diffusion of plant and animal domestication. As Anderson (1997, 463) notes, cultural geographers considered “domestication [as] a transhistorical process of evolution’s unfolding.” Thus they focused on the capture of wild animals for domestication, on household animals such as dogs (but also peccaries, muscovy ducks, and oysters), and on their husbandry— especially how the function they performed determined breeding practices. Cultural geographers remarked on how these animals played with children, and how strong emotional ties between them sometimes developed, but rarely commented on animals as entities in and of themselves. Sauer (1952) also noted how animals that were prized in one culture, might become the object of derision in a rival culture or be sacrificed. They rarely considered animals outside of the human realm and thus rarely studied wild animals, except for feral animals— a process which held some fascination for them. Thus Berkeley School geographers paid little attention to animals per se beyond the (vital but unacknowledged) contribution they made as laborers and food for humans, or the ways in which they were used in religious and cultural practices. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37 The Berkeley School was influential across several disciplines, and culminated in treatises such as M an’ s Role in Changing the Face o f the Earth (Thomas 1956), in which Sauer played a key role, along with luminaries such as Mumford, Strahler, Harris, Glacken, Teilhard de Chardin and Luna Leopold. Together, these authors powerfully expressed their concerns over the growing human misuses and abuses of nature. While their work did much to shape the environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s, their anthropocentric concerns were such that they failed to anticipate the subsequent rise of the animal rights movement. With the ascendency of positivism across the social sciences in the 1960s, geography began to divest itself of the Sauerian tradition and its idiographic emphasis and focus on cultural artifacts.5 Positivism required that more empirical methodologies be employed and favored a view of domestic animals as ‘tainted’ due to their interactions with humans. In every aspect, the positivist perspective that prevailed in the 1960-70s was anti thecal to Sauer’s legacy in cultural geography. A critique of positivism began in the mid 1970s, with sources in Marxism and humanism.6 But these critiques at first also gave short thrift to animals7 (Michel, 1998, 5 Attention to animals in Cultural Geography declined despite some effort to revive interests in 1960 and 1961 by Bennett. 6 See for instance Radical Geography: Alternative Viewpoints on Contemporary Social Issues edited by Peet in 1977. 7 For an exception see FitzSimmons’ "The Matter o f Nature,” in Antipode, 1982, 21, 106-20. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38 165-60). To some extent this is still the case, in political ecology for instance8 , where Marxist analysis continues to favor humans in opposition to nonhumans. Even environmental studies which might have included animals were focused on first integrating humans into positivist research. As Liverman (1999, 108) explains : [t]he physical scientists still tended to dominate international environmental research [...] and geographers, including myself, were often so preoccupied with getting the ‘human’ into the discussion that they overlooked the debates raging within the social sciences about the appropriate ways of understanding society and its relationship to nature (108). This divestiture was especially ill-timed for geography because it coincided with a powerful rise in popular concerns for the environment (Johnston, 1991,204-5). But the topic of animals went dormant for several decades in geography. As Anderson (1997,464) bemoans about the derth of critical geographic (or that of other social sciences) research on social aspects of domestication: [i]t is a silence that is not only surprising but also one that continues to constrain the imagining of alternative ethical and practical relationships between humans, animals and environments. (464) Wolch et al. (2000) argue that the erasure of animals in geography is linked to the fact that we are reliant on them in such vital ways, ways we would ‘never’ give up. They write: ... animals [are] so indispensable to the structure of human affairs and tied up with visions of progress and the good life, that even geographers, trained to analyze the complex relationships between people and their environments, have been unable to see them [...] Has the very centrality of the animal world prompted geographers and others to simply look away, and to ignore their fates? (2000, 39). See for instance, "Lobster in the Rain Forest" by Dodds, Journal of Political Ecology, 1998, 83-107, where no concern is given animals. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39 Thus by the 1990s geographic research on animals had become limited to applied work that had environmental impact studies as their primary objective, and this research has been technologically (and thus politically) endowed through a new geographic tool, namely geographic information systems (GIS). 2.3 ANIMAL GEOGRAPHY TODAY There are very specific reasons why human-nonhuman relations are at the moment undergoing radical reconsideration across the social sciences including geography. First, the often tragic results of human exploitation of nature have led academics to consider the social history of attitudes and behaviors toward nature and, to a lesser extent, whether people elsewhere have better ways of relating to nature. Second, relations between human and nonhuman animals have shifted over the last 30-40 years, especially in cities. Fewer urban dwellers ‘see’9 wild animals, and instead are more apt to engage in meaningful relationships with domesticated animals. This has prompted some historians and sociologists to reconstruct the history and nature of these relational changes. Third, the companionship of animals has made us aware of how similar animals can be to us, in terms of their social and emotional needs for instance, and this is being confirmed, species by species, by animal behaviorists. 9 Animals ubiquitous in the urban landscape, such as crows, hawks, rats, crickets and pigeons, may be thought as neither ‘companion’ nor ‘wild’ and thus fall out of our sight (unless they become ‘pests’). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40 But perhaps most significantly, recent developments in social theory have enabled academics to understand the social construction of human-nonhuman relations in new ways, and are opening the doors to more substantive analyses. Some of these analyses have focused on science— which has ‘spoken’ with the most authority on animals to date-and partly as a result, its legitimacy has been shaken. Vigorous critiques of science have provoked heated debates that will impact how we think about animals and treat them in the future. Animal geography is poised to play a critical role in helping to redefine these relations. It has already done so by focusing on animals in the political/economic arena of human affairs, and on animals as embodied beings. 2.3.1 SOCIAL THEORY AND ANIMALS Relatively quickly, geography has successfully challenged itself to play a more relevant and effective social role, most of all by being grounded in contemporary social theory. Within this effort, more attention is being paid to human-nonhuman animal relations. If again the protests at the World Trade Meeting can suggest, societal concerns about the environment have become so intertwined with other justice-related issues, that, as political commentator James Pinkerton put it, they may now form “the only significant challenge to the regnant paradigm of market economics” (1997, 2). This time, nature-society concerns have not fallen on deaf ears in (radical) geography. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41 The focus on human-nonhuman relations in the social sciences that has recently emerged has had several ‘moments’ of origin. Importantly for geography today, much of it has centered on space and especially on how space is used to assert, usurp, subvert and resist socio-political power. This analysis can be traced back to the 1930s French Annales School of social history, when the conventional approach to history (as a ‘natural’ chronology of political events) was discarded and instead a greater role was ascribed to social movements and social structures, as critically constitutive of everyday life in the context of human history (Wolch and Emel, 1998, xii-xv). But space took center stage in the 1970s, when French philosopher Foucault (through his work on Nineteenth Century prisons and asylums) elucidated how space is manipulated to create legitimacy, promote authority, and carve out power. Until then, the positivists saw space in geography only as an empty container in which people went about their business. The critical work of Henri Lefebvre (especially The Production o f Space in the 1960s, translated into English in 1991) problematized space as inescapably partial and constitutive of belief systems. This ‘rebirth’ of space has given some geographers, such as Soja in 1989, new ways by which to understand the meaning of place. As with a clarification of chronology/time in history, the constitutive quality of space in social life has become a cornerstone of contemporary social theory. At the same time however, another epistemological shift was occurring. The ‘modem subject’ that had been conceived in positivism as rational, coherent, and integrated; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42 and in Marxism as wholly determined by socio-economic structures; came under attack as unable to represent human complexity satisfactorily. The concept of the subject today has greater tolerance for ambiguity and agency, especially compared to the modernist deterministic models. But some important contradictions within it, such as cultural relativism, have also had serious consequences: namely that one can never know the ‘other.’ Giddens proposed that the extant modem subject, in part, be recovered. This partial recovery (through poststructuration) revealed ‘the postmodern subject,’ who acts on the basis of complex, even contradictory, motives, needs, and desires, and always exerts agency. And Haraway (1989) criticized cultural relativism as “a way of being nowhere while claiming to be everywhere equally” (584), and instead proposed we look at all ‘truths’ as “partial, locatable, critical knowledges sustaining the possibility of webs of connections called solidarity in politics and shared conversations in epistemology” (584). These breakthroughs have been especially persuasive in Feminist, Postmodern, and Postcolonial studies, and are critical to animal geography. By the mid to late 1980s, these radical reconsiderations were beginning to be extended to animals-creatures at the ‘ultimate’ margin of ‘otherness’— and our ways of knowing them. Important topics have included the relationship between how humans have constmcted ‘others’ as more or less like human or animal (Midgley 1983); how these constructions shape racialization (Spiegel 1988; Anderson 1998); how humans socialize with particular animals such as companion animals (Ritvo 1987; Serpell Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43 1986; Arluke and Sanders 1996); how science, and thus what we ‘know’ about animals, is inherently subverted by imperialism and masculinism (Merchant 1980; Haraway 1989; Plumwood 1993; Birke 1995; Adams 1995; Noske 1997); and how animals are represented in popular culture (Baker 1993; Mitman 1994; Davis 1997; Price 1999). More and more investigations concerning human-nonhuman animal relations are being conducted in the social sciences. According to the University of Michigan’s database of dissertations in the social sciences, seventy five theses and dissertations were written on this topic from 1975 to 1999, and of these, fully a third have been written since 1994. The disciplines represented include psychology (on attitudes toward biotechnology, hunting, ‘pet’ therapy, and of park visitors, zoo professionals); education (especially environmental education); history (often with a more regional and international focus); anthropology (on rodeos, food uses, diseases and religion); and sociology (on human-nonhuman relations primarily in wildlife parks in Africa, Asia and Europe). While the interest in human-nonhuman relations has risen, topics are very eclectic and often not theoretically framed. Social theorists are advancing the study of human-nonhuman animal relations in at least two ways. On the one hand, the critique of modernism has meant that the natural sciences have become deeply suspect for their “commitment to realism and objectivity, and their lack of self-reflectivity in the production of scientific knowledge,” (Wolch et Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44 ol., Forthcoming, 21). As a result, science has lost some of its luster and the scientific lens is no longer considered the only appropriate means of understanding animals in academia (Harding 1987; Haraway 1988). As naturalist Roger Tory Petersen put it long ago: “mechanomorphism [is] as great a pitfall in the study of bird behavior as anthropomorphism” (Howard, 1953, 14-15; cited in Lawrence, 1995, 77). On the other hand, much of this reconsideration of animal comes from the natural sciences, and especially from ethology, cognitive psychology, animal behaviorism, and biology.1 0 Indeed a handful of scientists in each of these fields have problematized the Cartesian divide between humans and animals. While in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth century both social and natural scientists were well aware that the divide between humans and animals was not so distinct (Burghardt 1985), natural scientists (often female, as Haraway has pointed out, 1989, 133-185) have recently shown through extensive periods of field work that human-nonhuman differences cannot be defined by the ability to use and create tools, employ language, wage war, experience empathy and altruism, or show intentionality (including creativity and resistance), because animals from squids to chimpanzees might well be able to perform and inform these acts and thoughts. Cued by these advances in the understanding of animals, social theorists are reconceptualizing the animal subject, and such works have brought on the perspective that animals might in and of themselves act with agency. The 1 0 This is highly controversial in the natural sciences where for instance, as Lawrence explains, the studies of animal behaviorists that describe consciousness in animals "are often ridiculed as anthropomorphic" (1995, 77). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45 concept of agency has afforded the opportunity to consider animals as conscious beings, something akin to what animal rights philosopher Tom Regan (1984) had already argued for. This philosophical position has compelled some geographers to ‘re-animate’ geography and welcome animals back into the academic fold.1 1 2.3.2 THE ENTRY OF ANIMALS IN GEOGRAPHY For us, building a progressive politics for the twenty-first century means combining critical analysis with a commitment to inclusive, caring, and democratic campaigns for a justice capable of embracing both people and animals. (Emel and Wolch, 1998, xii-xiii) The reinsertion of animals into geography is a radical enterprise with roots in animal rights philosophy (such as Singer 1977, Regan 1984), but also in the ‘new’ cultural geography, and (more eclectically) political economy, social theory, critical race theory, cultural studies, feminism, post-colonial critique, psychoanalysis, environmental history, history of sciences, urban wildlife conservation, conservation biology and anthropology (Philo and Wolch, 1998, 107). The short but significant history of animal geography has been defined by Anglo-American geographers, and was ushered in with a 1995 issue of Environment and Planning D: Society & Space. From the beginning, animal geography put a strong focus on place, and especially 1 1 Arguably this is not a re-covery for geography, because geography has never before considered animals as creatures with agency. Ferry (1992) cautions against confusing the call for respect for animals (which perhaps some Berkeley School cultural geographers might have ventured at best) for a recognition of animals as ‘deserving’ of rights, because one is based on deeply anthropocentric notions, while the other is not intended to be (25). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46 urban space. Thus, a “transpecies urban theory” (Wolch, West, and Gaines, 1995, 735) set out to fashion a “less anthropocentric urban theory,” and offered new ways of thinking about animals in the city. Wolch (1996) followed by upholding the place of animals in urban theory, specifically reconceptualizing animals as ‘postmodern subjects.’ This reconceptualization enriched the understanding of a more conscious, respectful, and harmonious coexistence between humans and nonhumans. This effort to “[create] many forms of shared space” has been developed by working through the different forms these spaces might take-including spaces of imagination (Wolch and Emel, 1998, xii), and thus the early emphasis on urban space has radically broadened to encompass how animals are socially constructed. This was empirically supported by a content analysis of ten years of Los Angeles Times coverage of human-cougar interactions in California, conducted by Gullo, Lassiter and Wolch (1998), who found that despite increases in negative incidents (including deaths) and alarmist reportage, coexistence with the lions had become increasingly important to the public and that the environmental movement had critically reshaped views about this predator. In Animal Geographies: Place, Politics, and Identity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands (Wolch and Emel, eds., 1998), the authors retrieved animals (and their bodies) out of geography’s oblivion (not a moment too soon) and from the contexts of very different histories, places and politics. Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: New Geographies o f Human-Animal Relations (Philo and Wilbert, eds., 2000) follows in these conceptual footsteps, by concentrating more specifically on what a focus on space and place can specifically bring to this project. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47 The focus on space and place in animal geography was also brought forth by ‘new’ cultural geographer Anderson (1997), who argued that colonial and postcolonial ideologies of superiority and domination undergirded the representation of animals at the Adelaide Zoo. Shortly after, she critically reviewed traditional cultural geography’s treatment of domestication, and proposed that this process might be rethought of as a [p]oiitical activity historically interconnected with ideas of human uniqueness and dominion, savagery and civilization that become interwoven into the structuring of not only human-animal relations but also other social arrangements (470) [and as a] “socio-symbolic process” (480). With this, she urged geographers to reimagine the human-nonhuman animal relation within a new space that would allow for conceptual difference to coexist. She shaped an appeal for: the envisioning of more complex and animal-inclusive models of social relations; interventions in the more intensive forms of animal agriculture; the relaxation of rigid oppositions of civility and wildness; and ultimately, a human Self [sic] more conversant with its own wild side, dedomesticated and unbound, (ibid., 481) This, she sees, would be a truly decolonized space. Some works in animal geography have attempted to bring forth the agency of animals by clarifying the chains of representations humans ascribe them, and how these function within social networks and produce normalized practice, or non-issues, within science or wildlife management (Wolch, Emel, Wilbert, Philo, 2000, 28-29). For instance, Thome (1998) considers the trade in kangaroo skin and meat, and seeks to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48 explain the validation of representation that has been used to pursue this trade despite rising concerns about kangaroo populations. And Woods (2000) considers the ways in which fox hunting advocates and antagonists use fox agency to support their interest/cause, for instance by highlighting that a fox alternately enjoys a good chase, or endures terror and cruelty, in the course of being killed. Based on actor network theory (ANT), these works are derived from semiotics and, more recently, from that of sociologists of knowledge and of science, such as Latour (1993). They defy the foundational divide between human and nonhuman animals (as well as material or subject-objects), and recreate how social order is negotiated through everyday networks. They are thus useful to explain ethical detachment (Thome, 1998, 179) which may suffuse scientific endeavors, and as far as animals are concerned. Curiously however,1 2 while these works are integrative in that they break down ontological divides and thus avoid some degree of anthropomorphism (Philo and Wilbert, 2000, 16-18), they tend to rely on limited homogenous mechanisms that disregard identity formation. So, while ANT can support the numerous studies of representation (by organizing representation within sequences of negotiation for instance), it gives short thrift to identity and culture. In a special issue of Society and Animals devoted to animals and geography, Philo and Wolch (1998) envisaged what a geographic perspective might bring to the 12 Wolch et al. (Forthcoming, 16) in part explains this by attributing it to the similarity between ANT and some Marxist analyses, namely that in ANT "society is constructed, but not socially constructed." This explanation is attributed to Latour (1994, 793). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49 understanding and theorization of human-nonhuman animal relations. For this they broadened the discussion of animals by addressing different subjectivity/ies, and by more thoroughly considering the social construction of human-nonhuman animal relations. They noted: “metaphors and images of animality, of the bestial and savage, are often deployed by mainstream society to represent those regarded as marginal, misfit or deviant” (108). A related theme of animal geography has been the way in which human identity defines how we think about animals and in turn how we treat them. This literature is significantly contributing to a greater understanding of the social construction of racial difference. For instance, Elder, Wolch, and Emel (1998b, 84-85) argued that colonialism had a particular signature that related racialization to animals, namely that it was characterized by a focus on the proximity of humans to animals or on the perception of similarity of appearance between them. But in a more unique contribution, animal geographers have also contended that a postcolonial link between animals and racialization is emerging, and that, as colonial ideas about race have been discredited, a distinctly postmodern way of constructing animal-human difference is warping both how we think of ‘other’ humans and of animals (Anderson 1997; Elder, Wolch and Emel, 1998a, 185). The essence of the postmodern human-animal relationship is, Elder, Wolch and Emel (1998b, 86) argue, based on globalization, partly because this accelerated economic Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50 process has triggered massive international migration. They explain that, as immigrants have come from regions more radically different from the urban centers they now find themselves in, and per chance have found a ready-made community of origin— one that has allowed them to continue old-country practices without interruption (Li 1998)— , the conditions of assimilation have become vastly different from those just a few decades ago. These swift changes, and the discrediting of colonialist racialization, have engendered a pervasive cultural relativism. This cultural relativism has had some consequences for animal related practices, specifically a tacit tolerance of non-mainstream behavior towards animals, and perhaps by the same token, a more complete erasure of the harmful activities committed by mainstream society, such as factory fanning. However this is not the entire story. As much as the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ impetus has been based on what is arguably a misshapen understanding of difference, it has emerged along side and in contradiction to what Elder, Wolch and Emel (1998b, 87) call a postcolonial reshaping of racialization on the basis of Western movements such as environmentalism, animal welfare and animal rights concerns. Thus, in her survey of visitors to a science museum, Whitley (1998) observed that this particular public had little tolerance for harmful practices toward marine animals, even when these were culturally based. Elder, Wolch and Emel (1998b, 87) remarked that (on the basis of news events) a ‘postcolonial’ racialization centered on people’s different practices, and even extended to people held accountable for environmental or animal related destructive actions in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51 their country of origin, regardless of whether they supported these practices or not. Elder, Wolch and Emel (1998a, 193) write: [w]hile a shift in the precise reference has occurred, the postcolonial moment continues to use putative human-animal boundaries to inscribe totems of difference. Thus, animal practices are a key aspect of the human-animal boundary that racializes and produces difference in radically changing time-space relations epitomizing postmodemity. Arguably this marginalization is further complicated by the experience of oppression for people in marginalized positions. The process of identity-construction can begin to explain the maintenance of fundamentally contradictory positions about animals, but remains extremely complex. This focus on the processes of racialization, and its relationship to the social creation of animals, further builds on the notion of animals as postmodern subjects as well as ideas of critical race theory. In a short time then, animal geographers have tackled a large agenda, asking fundamental questions about the human-animal divide. They have also made several propositions to address the quagmire of cultural relativism and (to a lesser extent) scienticism, by reconceptualizing animals as embodied; and especially by envisaging in-between or “shared spaces” (Wolch and Emel, 1998, xii), such as domestication (Anderson, 1998), that allow us to bridge the divide and coexist (Philo and Wilbert, 2000, 23); urging that a “less aggressive anthropocentrism be used” (Elder, Wolch and Emel, 1998b; Philo and Wilbert, 2000, 18); and in a return to Haraway (1989, 584), to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 identify “webs of connection” that re-produce harmful practices and the human-animal divide (Wolch 1998, Michel 1998). This research is tightly related to both the objectives and conceptual frameworks that animal geographers have advanced so far. 2.3.3 ANIMAL GEOGRAPHY: GAPS AND PROBLEMS Animal geography has only recently emerged yet its significance is already apparent, both in conceptualizing new social spaces for the human-nonhuman relationship, and in the field of geography, by clarifying the role of place in this relationship. However, they are based on a literature about animal relationships that remains rather eclectic, on anecdotal evidence and stories in the press, or on interpretations that rely on the author’s standpoint to a significant extent. At times the arguments animal geographers have proposed, particularly about the link between animals and ‘othering,’ have been unanchored and could be criticized for being unsupported. Animal geography has made excellent use of new conceptual ‘tools,’ but more substantial evidence will enrich the conceptual advances that have already been made. Thus while animal geography has helped to more fully conceptualize the relationship between animals and racialization, this important discussion has not yet benefitted from more empirically based analyses. Also, with few exceptions, a discussion of the influence of scientific discourse on the construction of animals, and thus its influence on the construction of difference between humans, has been lacking in animal geography. This gap is critical because science is the dominant Western discourse on animals and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53 a critique of this dominance exists, but also because these contests for dominance may have little to do with how to best treat animals, and ultimately cause great harm to them. Finally and relatedly, few animal geographers (or other researchers) have considered how the contests between culture and science have been negotiated by a range of very different institutions, namely animal oriented organizations ranging from natural history museums to the recreational fisheries agencies. In this section I review the tenor of these gaps in more detail and also their consequences, 2.3.3.1 Changing perspectives on race, ethnicity, and culture My interest in the fisheries began [...], when [...] I studied a local community of Chinese immigrants who by chance happened to be abalone hunters. I was struck by the way in which non-Chinese fishers used what ostensibly were conservationist concerns, that is, that the immigrants’ fishing methods depleted stocks on which others depended, for what clearly was the racist purpose of driving the Chinese themselves out of business by any means necessary. (McEvoy, 1986, xi) It is significant that McEvoy should begin his book devoted to California fisheries by identifying racism as the root of the non-Chinese fishers’ recriminations. While most of the local fisheries have all but disappeared from the region, race and culture are still used to defile people on the basis of different animal related practices. The interrelationship between (animal related) practice and race is one that has come under some scrutiny by animal geographers of late. Recent critical considerations of culture especially have emphasized both its social construction and its empowering potential Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54 for redefining one’s social identity. By identifying and unpacking these processes, it becomes clear what and how beliefs and practices are sanctioned at different levels. ‘Culture’ is nested in what is arguably a radical shift in the meanings of ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity,’ and lies at the heart of notions that have been used to express, construct, and legitimize human differences. The social construction o f 'race’ and ‘ ethnicity’ Works on ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ stem from fields that include anthropology, sociology, political science, and to a limited but growing extent, geography. These central concepts have generally been used to refer to groups of people who have select characteristics in common. In the case of ‘race,’ these characteristics have often been defined around what were considered biological and especially phenotypic traits. These ‘identifications’ became attached to other characteristics, such as socio economic and cultural differences, to justify social hierarchies and European domination (through slavery, colonialism, and imperialism). This was supported in academia, most blatantly through eugenics in the late 1880s and through some variants of social and cultural determinism (Degler 1991). These views lost academic currency, in part because they could not be supported by science and later because of the horrors and injustices that were perpetrated in their name. By the 1950-60s, greater effort was made to minimize differences between peoples and cultures instead (Friedman, 1994, 38). And in the U.S., the mainstreaming of immigrants and disabled people for Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55 instance was advocated. The melting of differences was promoted as fundamental to create social stability, prosperity and democracy. Significantly, this trend corresponded to a period of expanding U.S. hegemony across the world. ‘Ethnicity’ has had a more elastic definition through time, accommodating characteristics such as common language, history, and culture, but less place-specific. Some important clarifications have recently been made in anthropology. Friedman (1994, 33), for instance, makes a distinction between ‘Western (Modem) Ethnicity’ and ‘Traditional Ethnicity’ and interestingly points to the fact that the latter may appear as based on religion at first glance, but in actuality may be more closely linked to politics and medicine. This illustrates how the meaning of ethnicity is also dependent on socio-cultural and political context, and thus can have pejorative or empowering connotations or simply be misconstrued. The modernist ‘bias’ toward consensus (through the obliteration of both purported racial and ethnic difference) also had important consequences in academic theory and practice. It turned the attentions of social scientists to the search for universal patterns of human experience. In psychology for instance, research on ethnicity primarily focused on assimilation (rather than acculturation). Lack of ‘assimilation’ was directly attributed to the ‘strength’ or ‘weakness’ of a culture of origin, and the solution was thought to require a more thorough and sophisticated erasure of early beliefs and practices (Nelson and Tienda, 1985, 49). In geographic research (for instance in political geography), the concern for ethnicity and nation-states was translated into the identification of factors such as Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56 education and linguistic homogeneity that could most closely support societal identification with one nationally, dominant, and uniform ethnicity. The traditional views of ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ began to crumble in the late 1960-70s, thanks to social movements (in the US, beginning with the Civil Rights movement) that eventually defied the notion that homogeneity was ever achievable or desirable, or that parity could be reached without considering difference. Related shifts occurred in academia, where over the next thirty years, African American, Chicano, Feminist, and Queer scholars continued to promote critical standpoints on the basis of their different identity/ies, and to argue that a unitary perspective could never be equitable, and was thus unjustifiable. These scholars have reinterpreted important sociological concepts of ethnicity, culture and acculturation. For instance, in light of ‘the’ Mexican American experience, they have corrected the notion that one such single Mexican American experience existed but explained instead that it is formed of widely diverse experiences (according to place of origin, or first/second generation of immigrant for instance) (Nelson and Tienda, 1985,49-50). Soon they questioned the category of ‘Hispanic’ as virtually meaningless, because the differences in lived experience within this population are so great. They also questioned the notion that people with strong ties to country of origin would not adjust to a new culture, began to cast a more positive light on the traits immigrants retained from their land of origin, and then extolled these traits as signs of healthy adjustment (Sanchez, 1993, 5). Today, social scientists increasingly interpret cultural adjustments as individual negotiations, and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57 understand that people act with agency through, for instance, strategies of multiple identities that include holding simultaneous, contradictory positions (Sanchez, 1993, 8). As anthropologist Fischer (1986) stated in Writing Culture (a classic text that questions the role played by researchers in ‘their’ ethnographic research): [i]t is the inter-references, the interweaving of cultural threads from different arenas, that give ethnicity its phoenix-like capacities for reinvigoration and reinspiration. To kill this play between cultures, between realities, is to kill a reservoir that sustains and renews humane attitudes (230). Today ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ are understood as decidedly problematic notions that people can use for both their own liberation or the subjugation of others. Geographers are contributing to the clarification of these social constructions, primarily through their work on the deconstruction of categories and dominant discourses and the role of place in this process (Penrose and Jackson 1994), the spatial aspects of marginalization (Wolch and Dear 1994), and the uneven sharing of environmental risk on the basis of race or ethnicity and socio-economic status (Watts and Peet 1996; Pulido 1996, 2000). They have also been instrumental in clarifying the interface of both ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ with culture, and have begun to define anti-racist views of human difference. This is a (surprisingly) recent endeavor for the field of geography (Driver and Rose, 1992, 3). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58 Indeed in the 1990s, researchers have more ardently reflected on the very mechanisms of racialization. Omi and Winant (1994) began to define the process of race-making by looking at social relations in Nineteenth Century California. They have defined racialization as “the process by which social, economic, and political forces determine the content and importance of racial categories, and by which they are in turn shaped by racial meanings” (61-62, cited in Almaguer, 1994, 2-3). This definition focuses less on what consists in difference, and more on racialization as a socio-cultural process and ‘pathology.’ Indeed they understand the construction of this racialized difference as being produced on the basis of an erasure of ‘other’ history and experience, culture (such as language), and economics (through an erasure of economic contest or erasure of economic output) for instance. This new understanding of the racialization process is more integrative, in that “race and class systems [are understood as being] mutually constitutive” (Almaguer, 1994, 207). In turn, these researchers have been able to identify more subtle ‘signatures’ of racialization. For instance, in his book entitled Negrophobia and Reasonable Racism, Armour (1997) explains how practices that are at some level socially and culturally sanctioned, as in the case of the white American’s perception of young black men as menaces, or of a Hmong tribesman in California who kidnaped and raped his intended bride (as is apparently the tradition in his native Laos), must be challenged. This challenge he insists must destroy assumptions made at an individual level, by rationally exposing their ill foundations, and allowing us to consciously resist the racist impulse. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59 Of late, this literature has been expanded to a critical consideration of whiteness, beginning with a historical analysis of the willfull processes that have extended ‘whiteness’ to people that were at one time not considered white, such as the Irish and Jews (but not, say, Arabs). Most interestingly, this literature is also identifying how the historical roots of the white social construction of nature has been used to coopt other perspectives in the twentieth century, in order to seal our construction of social superiority. Thus DeLuca (1998) writes: [t]he key point [...] is not merely that nature is a social category whose meaning is culturally defined, but rather that the various meanings of the ideograph nature do ideological work, buttressing certain beliefs, warranting actions, justifying forms of society, and naturalizing hierarchical social relations. (219) In geography, Pulido (2000) explains how white privilege (in subtle distinction from white supremacy) has shaped environmental racism: [bjecause most white people do not see themselves as having malicious intentions, and because racism is associated with malicious intent, whites can exonerate themselves of all racist tendencies, all the while ignoring their investment in white privilege. (15) With this sharper understanding of racism as a process, we have also come to better understand how culture is playing a critical role in the construction of difference and/or it is being coopted for this process. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60 The social construction o f culture Just as technology, transportation, and the power of world capital conspire to overwhelm the world’s cultural diversity, creating a global mass culture with Western commodities at its heart, a growing worldwide ‘fundamentalism’ proclaims not only the legitimacy of sacred over secular authority but also the authority of ‘ethnic’ claims of local groups over the ‘political’ claims of modem states. Cultural differences dissolve on one stage only to reappear with vengeance on another. Both political liberation and ethnic genocide are the joint fruits of the new fundamentalism, and they are not always easy to tell apart. (Shore, 1996, 9) A ‘revival’ of ethnic differences (self ascribed or not) is frightening to many, from social critics to natural scientists. The new ‘fundamentalism,’ that Shore describes as a polarized contest of cultural claims, is especially troubling because it raises the fear that extreme relativism threatens the political progress of the twentieth century. While the concepts of ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ have increasingly been problematized over the last thirty years, ‘culture’ has achieved privileged status, despite tenacious definitional problems. However the question remains open as to who stands to really gain from this straggle. Like ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity,’ culture has been the central concern of cognitive scientists and cultural anthropologists. It is generally considered that the term refers to practices and acquired beliefs that have abstract or symbolic significance to groups of people. But this basic definition has undergone its own evolution. Until the 1960-70s, culture was mostly defined in academia by anthropologists, and to a lesser but significant Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61 extent, cultural geographers (notably again Carl Sauer and the Berkeley School) as material adjustments some people made to the natural environment. Culture tended to be seen as fixed, so research would typically set out to define ‘a’ culture and find its geographic boundaries, as a code linking social structure between various scales of environmental contexts. The emphasis was on finding (and classifying) ‘pure’ cultures which had ‘harmoniously’ co-evolved with their natural environment without interferences (Hugill and Foote, 1994, 11). Beyond a defining concern for the spatial propagation of early cultures in geography, this understanding was generally removed from historical, political, and urban contexts. Most importantly, few works addressed the inner workings of culture, especially of contemporary and nonrural cultures. Little attention was given to individual agency, including the individual agency people use in shaping culture. For instance, the lives of women were often described only in the context of their relationship to men or as ipso facto victims. But research in the 1970- 80s started to change this, and in the case of women in West Africa for instance, showed that women exerted networks of control other than men did, and that these means were cultural rather than political. This was very different from what (male) researchers had presented (see Hafkin and Bay, 1976, 15-18; O’Barr, 1984, 141 and 154). Such research lay the groundwork for a transformation of interpretations of culture in social research. Today, the term ‘culture’ has increasingly been divested from its focus on material artifacts, as well as some of its elitist connotations whereby some people have ‘culture’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62 while others do not. Culture is understood more open-endedly than ever. We hear and read of ‘youth culture,’ ‘Christian culture,’ ‘sports culture,’ ‘cyberculture,’ ‘victim culture,’ ‘heartland culture,’ ‘prison culture,’ ‘entrepreneurial culture,’ ‘political culture,’ ‘corporate culture,’ and the ‘culture of secrecy.’ This multiplicity of ‘cultures’ casts both a positive and negative light on trends and power struggles. On the one hand, it reflects the dynamic and imaginative adjustments humans make and remake in light of social and economic struggles. Cultural hybridity, or as Gloria Anzaldua called it, the ‘mestiza’ perspective (1987, cited in Sanchez, 1993, 9; Fischer, 1986, 230), credits people for being able to accommodate themselves in pluralistic environments, specifically by allowing for contradictions and ambiguity to coexist in their interpretations of practices and attitudes (Sanchez, 1993, 9). However, on the other hand, this process-the current darling of social theorists— may also glorify Westernization and hide the pain of cultural and economic imperialism.1 3 And culture (whether hybrid or not) can also take hateful and unreflective forms, debase women, polarize people and amplify conflicts. Like ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity,’ the word ‘culture’ can be used derogatively to oppress people and sanction their subjugation, and be a pivotal component of racialization and white privilege. Again these meanings depend on their social context, and whether they are used in a self ascriptive manner. This lengthy discussion on new understandings of race and ethnicity highlights how important (and novel) it is for animal geography to be engaged in identifying the Numerous discussions on this process are on-going, however for a clear treatment see Cultural Identity & Global Process by Jonathan Friedman (1994) pp. 12-13. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63 process of racialization as part and parcel of human-nonhuman relations. It also shows how this engagement must extend to culture, and how culture supports or resists current racialization. This has not been extensively considered in the contemporary context, or through a tangible consideration of current attitudes. This research serves to partly fill this gap. 2.3.3.2 The Contest Between Science and Culture Most social scientists would agree that the dominant perspective on animals stems from science, and understand this perspective to be socially constructed. By now, they have shaped a powerful critique of science, based on a deconstruction of the objectives, claims, and subjective decisions that shape scientific endeavors. While animal geography participates in this critique, by reconsidering animals as beings with bodies (that hurt) and agency, it has not yet clarified its relationship to science, in large part because of the problem that if animals can not ‘speak’ for themselves, who else can do it? But this is perhaps accentuated in geography because a critique of science potentially stands to widen the rifts that already exist between physical and human geographers. Nevertheless it may become a dooming bias that prevents geography from participating in drawing up new relations between humans and nonhuman animals. In fact, geography could be in an excellent position from which to shape a culturally and scientifically based understanding of animals. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The scientific response to the postconstructivist critique 64 So far scientists have not been challenged to reconsider the human-nonhuman divide even in light of scientific studies in animal behavior, or to reconsider their science- based practices, such as wildlife management. Modernism promised people that by changing their (cultural) ways, all would enjoy unparalleled progress thanks in part to science and technology (see Rosenau 1992; Latour 1993). To a large extent this promise has thankfully come through, but the disillusionment with science coupled with distinct scientific misjudgements and failures, have brought the legitimacy of positivist science into question nonetheless.1 4 The deconstruction of scientific discourse in the social sciences has outraged many natural scientists who deny that science is socially constructed. Some have thus mounted a struggle to sustain the authority of science and regain the moral high ground. Conservation biologists in particular have been willing to engage in this discussion about what the ultimate results of science would be, if it is no longer the only guiding light for understanding animals and managing wildlife. Over the last decade, a range of views have emerged, beginning with pragmatic ways to handle public attitudes that have become increasingly influenced by animal rights. David Ehrenfeld, in his 1991 Conservation Biology editorial, cajoled: See the criticisms of physicist and feminist Shiva (1993) for instance. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65 The animal rights school is driven by an ethical and religious concern for the sanctity of individual, nonhuman life. This cannot be compromised. The conservation and management school is driven by an ethical and pragmatic concern for the integrity of ecosystems and their component populations and for the primacy of rational methodologies in solving environmental problems. This cannot be compromised... Conservation needs the passion, the numbers and the power of the animal rights movement. The animal rights movement needs the understanding of how the natural world works and the informed foresight that conservation science and management can provide ... We cannot afford to be alienated from honest and well-motivated allies because they have a different way of seeing the world or because it is easier to find points of argument than points of agreement (3). From Ehrenfeld’s pragmatic objectives to ‘get on’ in 1991, a few wildlife biologists have edged toward a position that is more specifically moral, first by acknowledging that other perspectives on animals have value. They have become more self-conscious about the alternative perspectives of the public and the challenges of their authority. Girard, Anderson and De Laney (1993), for example, discuss proactive strategies to safeguard wildlife managers and practices from animal advocates and the media. Similarly, Roberto (1995) presents both conservationist and animal welfare perspectives on cats living in wilderness, and describes instances where accommodations were made that satisfied both the interests of cat activists and those of the birds they hunt, and Gill (1996) reflects that (speaking for and about wildlife professionals): “[w]e are firmly embedded in the historic paradigm of conservation while the public increasingly converts to the evolving paradigm of environmentalism”1 5 (60), and further continues: “I believe in part it is because public Gill credits O’Riordan (1971) for the content of this statement. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66 wildlife agencies have tended to overvalue the biological dimensions of wildlife management and undervalue the human dimensions” (61). He predicted that this would challenge the “very existence” of the wildlife profession and that: [s]urvival and success will demand a most daunting human dimensions enterprise. We must begin the task of converting our fundamental philosophy from wise use to wise decisions. It will require no less than the reformation of our professional institutions and the transformation of our professional culture. (66) (italics in text) Thus in a short span of time, some wildlife biologists have become more willing to engage themselves with issues of moral responsibility beyond those generally attached to the conservationist stance. As exemplified by Girard, Anderson and De Laney (1993) however, these are often strategies of accommodation however, necessitated for professional preservation. But as scientific discourse is being deconstructed, and as the animal welfare and rights movements have penetrated academia, a more thorough and philosophical engagement on the part of spokespeople in various scientific communities has begun and has ensued in a highly polemical debate. In Reinventing Nature? Responses to Postmodern Deconstruction (Soule and Lease 1995), renowned conservation biologist and advocate Michael Soule identified three “myths of postmodernism” that bias new perspectives on nature and animals: “the myth of Western moral inferiority” (by which we undermine our positive attitudes toward nature and idealize those of non-Westem Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67 peoples, whose culture we continue to see as more pure and reverent)1 6 , “the myth of Constructionism” (by which we understand nature only as a social construct, and its physical reality as secondary or unknowable), and “the myth of the pristine/profane dichotomy” (by which we despair that nature is irreparably spoiled by humans, especially Westerners) (146-159). Reclaiming the moral high ground, Soule (1995) eventually posits: Entire species are being driven to extinction because of superstitious cultural practices in wealthy countries— and the reluctance of activists to meet them head-on for fear of being called racist. Surely we must forthrightly criticize the use of tiger bones in Chinese herbal medicine and the use of rhinoceros horns for dagger handles by Yemeni men. Just as we are obligated to criticize practices that victimize minority populations of Homo Sapiens (such as the Ku Klux Klan “culture”), we must also struggle against an anthropocentrism that exterminates less powerful beings. (150-1) Soule is disturbed by the reigning cultural relativism that has resulted from postmodern critiques. In the name of disappearing animals, he urges us to take a stance, and likens this stance to one against a racist group. Soule is putting the rights (to not be killed and to live) of (at least endangered) animals ahead of the rights of some human practices. Again at the root of this is the very real question: if we move the dividing line that has separated humans from nonhumans, where shall we place it? Or in other words, how can we exist without such a dividing line? This question has real world consequences, Soule uses Kellert’s comparative work on international attitudes toward animals to make this point. I discuss Kellert’s contribution in Chapter Three. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68 including for how humans treat one another. Despite animal geography’s tackling complex issues of cultural relativism, little so far has been forthcoming in terms of understanding what is at stake for animals, whether a cultural lens introduces more complexity and ultimately less justice, how this is spatially reflected, and especially, what to do about it. 2.3.3.3 Animal Geography and Animal Related Organizations Finally, a significant bias of animal geography is its lack of research on animal oriented organizations (or AOOs), such as local animal regulation and control bureaus, animal protection organizations (such as humane societies) that manage problems linked to animal populations, ‘animal display institutions’ such as zoos and aquaria that affect how people see and think about animals, or animal advocacy groups that conduct outreach campaigns. Little is known about the landscape of such organizations and their animal-oriented outreach activities. The most basic questions remain unanswered relative to their numbers, sizes, types, and missions. A vigorous consideration (across the social sciences) could provide much needed information on these organizations, their role in public life, and how they shape our thinking and treatment of animals. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2.4 CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE DISSERTATION 69 This dissertation will make some important and original contributions to the understanding of human-nonhuman relations in animal geography. First, based on a distinctly geographic framework, the relationship between attitudes toward marine animals and culture is examined in a context that includes particular mechanisms of cultural relativism and/or postcolonial racialization. Thus this inquiry will build an empirical framework from which to sustain animal geography’s focus on the relationship between animals and racialization. Another important socio-cultural context of attitudes that is highlighted in this dissertation is that of white privilege, in the form of science and science education. This context is critical to what people think of animals, how they change their attitudes or adjust their practices. This inquiry is conducted in the context of marine animal oriented organizations, which despite the fact that they often function as mediator of attitudes (or aim to do so), have received scant scrutiny in or out of geography. Finally, by providing clarity about the intervention of complex identity/racialist strategies into the construction of attitudes toward marine animals, this research stands to improve both how human and nonhuman animals are treated beyond racist/anthropocentric impulses and perspectives. In this way, this dissertation is an important contribution to the reconceptualization of animals in the social sciences. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70 After reviewing the research on attitudes toward animals in the next Chapter, I describe the methodological contribution of this dissertation. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER THREE- ATTITUDINAL RESEARCH AND ATTITUDES TOWARD ANIMALS 3.1 INTRODUCTION The nature of human attitudes has been of major interest to researchers from many fields, especially psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, political analysts and pollsters. Yet, the process of how attitudes are formed, and how these in turn impact behavior for instance, is a complex process that has yet to be explained with clarity. In the last decades, researchers have expanded from a focus on isolating and measuring attitudes, and have turned their attention to broader contexts in order to more fully explain the contingency of attitudes on emotion, knowledge and experience. This broadening of attitudes research, from a descriptive to a more explanatory emphasis, is in part a response to the greater need for relevance that many disciplines have experienced since the 1980s. Societal concerns over animals have grown rapidly over the last thirty years in the U.S. and in many other countries. This concern partly arose from species endangerment on one hand, and a growing willingness to give rights to some animal on the other. Meanwhile, people’s desire, ability and opportunity to interact with animals has also increased, as witnessed by the growing popularity of companion animals, and of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72 venues such as zoos, animal theme parks, whale watching trips, and trips to wilderness areas to see wildlife, and this is likely to have impacted attitudes as well. The fact that professionals such as wildlife managers, find it more problematic to serve the public while protecting wild animals, is only one of the many reasons why the need to understand attitudes toward animals has intensified. And indeed most surveys— and attitudinal research is typically based on questionnaires— have been conducted under the aegis of wildlife management agencies. Today animal welfare organizations such as the Humane Society are beginning to turn to this kind of research as well. As with attitudinal research in general, specific research on attitudes toward animals has aimed to characterize the nature of these attitudes first and foremost. These works are both rooted in traditional attitudes research and in public policy, and have remained tied to the description of attitudes and pragmatic considerations, such as the popular appeal of one animal-related policy over another. Thus little progress has been made on elucidating processes that bring about particular attitudes or attitudinal change. Over the last decade however some researchers have proposed more innovative approaches that rely more broadly on sociological factors in the explanation of attitudes, and that (to a lesser extent) methodologically distance attitudinal research from survey questionnaires. Following this introduction, I provide an overview of general attitudinal research and the methodological and conceptual assumptions that undergird it. I also examine how Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73 these assumptions have stood in the way of more explanatory analyses of attitudes. Then, I focus on the seminal research on attitudes toward animals conducted by Kellert (1979) and Kellert and Berry (1980), and explain the influence of general attitudes research on this body of work, its own merits and limitations. In the next part, I consider trends in the research on attitudes toward animals in the 1980s and in the 1990s as responses within the contexts of general attitudes research, of the Kellert ‘tradition,’ or of advances related to poststructural social theory in other disciplines. Finally, I conclude by highlighting the limits and biases of current research on attitudes toward animals and show how this dissertation’s objective aims to minimize these gaps. 3.2 OVERVIEW OF GENERAL ATTITUDES RESEARCH The term ‘attitude’ was first coined in 1862 by Herbert Spencer to describe psychological predispositions. This term has been broadly used to explain a bevy of human behaviors, from physiological readiness to moral principles, and still tends to be all-encompassing and vague. Gordon Allport, well-known for his work on prejudice and rumors, declared attitudes to be of central concern to Social Psychology in 1935, and is considered the father of the discipline (Oskamp, 1991, 2). As such, psychology has importantly shaped how we today understand and study the nature and influence of human attitudes. In the United States this has meant an approach based on individual response, rather than collective representation (Jaspars and Fraser, 1984, 10). Concerns Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74 over methodology have dominated the field of social psychology, and attitudes have typically been inferred from survey responses (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993, 3). The field is slowly changing, and other scholars in the social sciences are joining in to seek more comprehensive understandings of attitudes. Current attitudinal research is attempting to overcome central assumptions. For instance, attitudes were long considered by Allport and others, as individually held, enduring in the human psyche, and the driving force behind behavior (Oskamp, 1991, 8). These assumptions were bolstered by the belief that people make rational decisions about their attitudes, partly on the basis of their emotions, thoughts, and actions. Attitudes were also thought to result from the relationship between at least three components: knowledge, experience and beliefs. One important consequence of this framework was that a consistent relationship was implied to exist between all parts (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993, 16). But when psychologists tried to use correlation coefficients to test the reliability (the consistency of scores and values of the measuring instrument) and validity (the extent to which the instrument measures what it claims to measure) of their measurements, and the extent to which their measuring instruments were free from random error, results were decidedly mixed, and eventually cast doubts on their long-held assumptions about the consistency of relationships between attitudinal components. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 In the 1960s, when both statistical models and survey techniques greatly improved, attitudinal research still failed, to achieve high correlation rates, especially between attitudes, knowledge and behavior, hi a review of attitude-behavior research, Wicker (1969) asserted that results did not warrant the widespread notion that attitudes reliably predict behavior. And Breckler (1984) eventually argued that the relationship between components (knowledge, experience, beliefs) should be viewed as a construct, rather than a correlation or even a continuum. Despite this record, some progress was made. According to Oskamp (1991), the major contribution of the (primarily) methodological research that prevailed in the 1960-90s, was the inclusion of more dimensions in attitudinal models (61). These models characteristically incorporated a combination of scales, in order to address various aspects of a topic. But each new attitudinal research necessitated extensive reworking of previous scales. This difficulty led to ad hoc variations of the models, and to the growing use of untested methods, and more experimentation in attitudinal survey work {ibid., 1991, 4). To a limited extent, this has broadened the methodological focus of attitudes research. More than ever, researchers are aware of the complexity of attitudes. In a recent psychology textbook on attitudes research, Eagly and Chaiken (1993, 1) define ‘attitude’ as “a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor,” a much less conditional meaning than Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76 had been given until then. This definition is also more cognizant of both internal (‘tendency’) and external (‘evaluating’) factors that a person’s attitudes might reflect. Altogether researchers are more likely to operate under the assumption that widely divergent factors can affect attitudes, including the vagaries of respondent mood, which are the result of “contextual variables as the weather or finding a dime”(Tourangeau and Rasinski, 1988, 305)! Researchers are also revising some of their long-held beliefs about attitudes in light of paradigmatic changes in other fields. Influences such as semiotics (Btiky 1974) were instrumental in gradually leading to a broader conceptual understanding of attitudes. This framework is less focused on individual factors, and more inclusive of ideological and cultural contexts (such as religion), in order to eventually support more explanatory works. Thus in 1991, Oskamp recommended that researchers focus on the centrality of attitudes to an individual person as a member of a social group (74). This reconceptualization has yet to fully influence attitudes research, but some changes are occurring. Meanwhile much current work in the social sciences (other than psychology) concerns attitudes (without referring to them as such), is based on qualitative research, and on a range of interpretative techniques issued of French sociology for instance. Efforts (such as Kvale 1992; Polkinghome 1992) to reconcile these epistemological avenues are exceptional— in and out of psychology. A handful of psychologists are instigating a reassessment of attitudinal research. Perhaps their work will propel the discipline in new directions (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993, 156-7). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77 General attitudes research is largely defined by psychological research and, as such, is based on theories about personality and the rational individual rather than on societal ideology. Attitudes research has relied heavily on methodology, with conceptual frameworks serving a secondary role. Three internal issues initiated changes in the Eighties and Nineties: (a) scales abounded but were rarely comparatively used and thus a strong cumulative research tradition was lacking; (b) findings were inconsistent; and (c) there had been an insufficient consideration of the socio-cultural context of attitudes. Attitudes research has remained remarkably atheoretical, and is still much more descriptive rather than predictive or explanatory. 3.3 ATTITUDES TOWARD ANIMALS Public attitudes toward animals have radically changed since the 1960s: concern quickly swelled to produce popular environmental and animal movements with a wide array of agendas. At first, the research on the nature of these attitudes was slow to develop and was closely tied to traditional attitudes research, but the topic is investigated with more fervor and imagination now. On the one hand, public interest in animals has lasted long enough to substantially influence policy, and thus formally justify the monitoring of these attitudes. On the other, this longevity provides some insight into how these attitudes have changed. These factors have made attitudes toward animals into a rich objective of inquiry. In this section, I detail the nature of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78 early research on attitudes toward animals. Then I trace research developments in the 1980s and 1990s, and discuss strengths and limitations that characterize this research today, in light of the objectives of this dissertation. 3.3.1 KELLERT’S RESEARCH ON ATTITUDES TOWARD ANIMALS The research on attitudes toward animals was initiated in the late 1970s with Kellert and Berry’s mailed survey of three thousand Americans (with an oversampling of ‘specialists’ such as trappers) for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Kellert 1979; Kellert and Berry 1980). Based on standard attitudes research, this survey inquired into knowledge, preference of, and attitudes toward wildlife. Not only was its population sample relatively large, but demographic characteristics of respondents were used to relate attitudes to particular individual characteristics, such as race, economic status, education, geographic region, gender, age, sporting activity, and whether they stood to make economic gain from animals. Most of all Kellert’s research provided a typology of ten attitudinal dimensions (appendix A). The most common attitudes that they found were humanistic, moralistic, utilitarian, and negativistic attitudes, while the least common were scientistic and dominionistic attitudes, with important attitudinal differences depending on gender, rural/urban residence, and for respondents who are trappers for instance (1980). These findings continue to provide an important survey model, baseline, and typology of attitudes. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79 Kellert followed this work with two types of studies. The first type aimed at comparing American attitudes to those of people in Germany and Japan (1991a and 1993a). Some results concurred with the American survey but the relationship between demographic variables and attitudes was not as clear, and cast some doubt as to the validity of such a comparison at least within the confines of (standard) attitudinal research. For instance, the fact that nearly the same questions were posed in all three countries, with little concern for differences in their socio-cultural meanings, probably led to omissions of important socio-cultural trends that inevitably weakened the comparisons. This was most apparent in the case of Japanese attitudes, where Kellert ignored the tradition of ‘nutate’1 for instance. The surveys Kellert conducted as tools for management decisions were more fruitful. Several studies dealt with people’s attitudes toward predator reintroduction such as wolves, and focused on deer hunters, trappers, farmers (1985 and 1991b). Subsequently K ellert, Gibbs and Wohlgenant (1995) has also surveyed attitudes of the Canadian general public toward fisheries, and most recently attitudes toward marine mammals in the U.S. (1999) which I discuss later in this Chapter. The studies that have replicated Kellert’s efforts have been geared at guiding wildlife management decisions. They are largely descriptive, rely on (unexamined) For a discussion of mitate, a non-Westem way of appreciating nature, see Yamaguchi’s essay "Exhibition in Japanese Culture" in Exhibiting Cultures, edited by Karp and Lavine, 1991, 57-67. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80 assumptions about the relationship between attitudes, knowledge and behavior, and have had mixed results. Fortner and Lyon (1985) conducted a pretest and posttest survey of people watching a Cousteau show on television, to assess if television is a good vector of knowledge. In this effort researchers were intent on testing the relationship between knowledge and attitudes, and found that attitudes toward animals were improved after watching the program but for a limited time only. Siemer (1987) also used Kellert’s typology in his survey of about 1,500 science teachers in Missouri, but found that despite a homogenous population (women for the most part) not much attitudinal consistency emerged (many of them were hunters, with a low interest in science, and positive feelings toward animals)! In the early 1990s, Herzog, Betchart, and Pittman (1991) surveyed over 350 students, and combined many of Kellert’s questions with other scales, the ‘Bern Sex Role inventory,’ the ‘Willingness to Take Action’ and the ‘Willingness to Touch’ scales. Most typical is Weston’s attitudinal survey of zoo professionals (1991), which simply drew a comparison of Kellert’s findings, and thus elicited an explanation for attitudes that is unattached to a conceptual framework. Kellert’s comprehensive surveys have provided researchers an entry into the topic of attitudes toward animals, a nationwide assessment of these attitudes, and this by way of a carefully crafted population sample and survey questionnaire. Kellert’s typology of attitudinal dimensions is most significant in that it opened the doors to the topics of attitudes toward animals, at a time when attitudes toward animals were changing. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81 Kellert’s ‘method’ is seemingly simple to use, and does not require high levels of correlation among parts to begin to be useful. However, much of the subsequent research inspired by Kellert has, for the most part, not been able to shake off important methodological limitations and conceptual biases about attitudes— especially due to its lack of reliance on an examined conceptual framework. 3.3.2 RESEARCH ON ATTITUDES TOWARD ANIMALS IN THE 1980s The study of attitudes toward animals that began in earnest with Kellert’s surveys and attitudinal dimensions typology about attitudes toward wildlife, provided an enormous impetus for new topics, interchangeable typologies, and a wealth of data for researchers to test. But by the late 1980s, it was becoming clear that descriptions of attitudes could no longer replace their explanation, and that new models would have to emerge in order for the field to progress. More and more often, researchers had noted contradictions and began to suggest explanations for these idiosyncracies. For instance Decker and Goff (1987) in their mailed surveys of attitudes toward deer, remarked that people enjoyed the presence of deer in their community despite their sharp awareness of the problems presented (danger on roads, eating flowerbeds, tick carriers), and concluded that deer were seen as an aesthetic resource in an overwhelming manner. Questions on cruelty and animal experimentation began to appear in attitudes surveys and helped make sense of some Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82 contradictions. Here Driscoll (1987)’s survey asked questions about laboratory practices that then were randomly repeated for various animals, so that the attitude toward the practice could thus be isolated from that toward the animal, while still generating a complex picture of attitudes toward animals. And in 1987, Richard Mordi published his dissertation on public attitudes toward wildlife in Botswana, and reported how the presence of polarized attitudes was revealed in the “chronic tension [that] was found to exist between proconservation wildlife policies of the state and the anticonservation cultural milieu in which the public found itself’ (2). Thus he placed his interpretation in the context of modernization, or rather resistance to modernization. Also, efforts were made to accommodate epistemological discrepancies by broadening the nature of survey questions posed. Penland (1987) sought to explain attitudes by comparing the abundance of avian species to Seattle residents’ appreciation for particular birds. In a survey of over 7,000 people, Purdy and Decker (1989) developed standardized values linked with questions and thus tried to re-groups attitudes (traditional, societal and problem-acceptance), according to more socio-cultural factors. Meanwhile gender differences which had always shown up in Kellert’s work (and others) as critical factors in attitudes toward animals, had been disregarded. An exception to this is Driscoll (1987) again who argued that since gender had previously indicated strong correlation with opinions on animal cruelty, then attitudes toward animal research could be measured by using a scale of attitudes toward feminism in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83 combination with other scales. She proceeded to construct a highly innovative survey where questions about vegetarianism, pet ownership, and farm living were combined with those designed to measure adherence to feminist principles, and indeed was able to show some relationship between them. Clearly researchers had little direction in how to interpret attitudes in the 1980s, and often made ‘best guesses’ on the basis of their own experience (‘bottom-up’), education (‘top-down’), or intuition. Naturally these ‘guesses’ ranged widely and, as a result, the sum total of the research on attitudes toward animals in this decade was particularly eclectic. Toward the late 1980s some surveys began to show a greater awareness of inherent biases and to more thoroughly appreciate the impact of socio cultural factors on individual attitudes. 3.3.3 THE RESEARCH ON ATTITUDES TOWARD ANIMALS IN THE 1990s In the 1990s it became more clear how attitudinal research had been flawed by its inability to get beyond describing attitudes. Biases were addressed at the same time as yet more of them were found. Most of all this decade has been characterized by a greater willingness to change surveys or to consider other methods. For instance they have broaden their analysis of domaines of attitudes, to more qualitatives approaches, in an effort to understand the formation of attitudes. Thus a critique of traditional Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84 works on attitudes toward animals has emerged, as a response to three influences: (1) General attitudes research, (2) Kellert’s legacy, and (3) New concerns in social theory. 3.3.3.1 General attitudes research The idea that attitudes toward wildlife could be measured by asking people what (and how much) they would give up in order to ensure personal access to wildlife, or to safeguard distant wildlife, was first tested in standard attitudinal research. An important compendium of this research as it related to wild animals had been published in 1987 (Decker and Goff, editors). This concept was taken up in 1990 by Glass, More and Stevens who remarked on the difficulty of equating monetary value with attitudes, and by others such as Bath (1991) who measured the willingness to reintroduce the wolf; Stevens, More and Glass (1994) who differentiated between values ascribed (for future generation, existence value, etc.); Fulton and Manfredo, (1996) and Fulton, Manfredo, and Lipscomb (1996), who also focused on values and beliefs rather than knowledge per se. But this research on the ascribed (monetary) value of animals has distanced itself from traditional attitudes research, because individual ascriptions of value (what one is willing to pay) rarely ‘match’ real-world behavior (what one is really willing to pay), a contradiction which is not explained in attitudes research. Other researchers who have also struggled with a lack of explanation for attitudes toward animals have turned to developments in standard attitudes research, and sought to apply some of the new ideas to their research. They Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85 tried to use scales in tandem for instance. Thus, Schenk et al. (1994) used the ‘Pet Attitude Score’ and the ‘Family Environment Scale’ to correlate attitudes from adolescents to their parents, a conceptually innovative model of attitude formation, only to find that the cause and effect relationship was not clear. In fact these kinds of surveys retained (if not multiplied) problems inherent to scale construction such as interpretation. Also, the relationship between attitudes and behavior continued to be problematic as it has in general attitudes research. Rossi and Armstrong (1999) looked at the complex issue of why people hunt, but were unable to explain results. Interestingly, they blamed their questions for not anticipating contradiction, and thus not get at factors for stopping hunting, such as boredom with it or lacking the heart to continue hunting (53). These researchers were constrained by the format of their inquiry— a telephone survey with ‘fixed’ answers and, within answers, some bias that turned out to be critical. Thus, while some problems remained (or worsened) researchers who had turned to developments in standard attitudes research and were frustrated with results, showed a greater willingness and/or ability in the 1990s to more candidly consider alternative perspectives, rather than perform more complicated scale design or create more intricate statistical models to accomodate results. 3.3.3.2 The Kellert legacy As with traditional research on attitudes, a large share of the works in the 1990s still remained descriptive, especially works oriented toward wildlife management, such as Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86 Reading, Clark and Kellert (1994) who interviewed 300 neighbors of the Yellowstone area about wildlife issues, economic development and regional control. Another nice example is Mclvor’s (1994) research on attitudes of fanners and non farmers toward sandhill cranes, as compared to the severity of damage the birds cause them (the author found that these were unrelated). In their innovative survey of 300 National Park visitors and sixty park neighbors, Wolch etal. (1996) found pronounced gender differences, supplemented the (Kellert) survey with questions about respondent interaction with wildlife, and brought to bear the educative roles of parks. And Kellert’s (1999) last national survey inquired into more political and culture-laden topics relating to the management of marine mammals found that a majority of people supported the rights of native peoples to hunt marine mammals, unless the hunts were for commercial uses, the animals were endangered, the hunt held little cultural significance or were conducted with the aid of nontraditional technology (12-13). Respondents also thought it important to protect fishing operations (13-15)~this is controversial since seals and sea lions (which are protected) are sometimes said to compete with humans for fish. And in terms of nonconsumptive uses, respondents declared themselves against the keeping of marine mammals in captivity, yet more than ever the public visits these sites (zoos, theme parks, hotels ...) and are disappointed if on a whale watching tour they do not see a whale. Thus, while Kellert substantiates the public’s greater interest and sympathy for marine mammals, the survey does not clarify how such fundamental contradictions exist within public attitudes. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 While some of these studies rely on creative scale construction for instance or dwell on difficult political issues, they especially point to the lack of reference to a well developed theoretical framework which continues to mar attitudinal research. Sadly, by not pursuing this inquiry, Kellert’s work in particular also reinforces the dichotomy between perspectives like conservation and animal rights. In irony, the research on attitudes toward animals has increasingly been conducted in order to ameliorate the public’s reaction to wildlife management decisions, or find common ground between wildlife management or resource professions and animal rights groups (Kellert, Gibbs and Wohlgenant 1995; Fumham and Heyes 1993; and Decker et al. 1991). An example is the above survey on marine mammals by Kellert (1999) which was conducted for a consortium of public and private agencies, under the leadership of the Humane Society. In the 1990s, Kellert’s work has culminated with a typology of important attitudinal related factors that wildlife managers should consider for pragmatic reasons of simple conflict resolution (with Gibbs and Wohlgenant 1995). However, it should be noted that these factors reflect a bias or concern that Kellert and Berry had expressed earlier, about attitudes that favor animal welfare and rights, when they wrote: a “bedrock of affection and concern are present, no matter how naively manifested’ (my italics) (1980, 35-36). He continued by warning of the negative consequences of such attitudes for the management of healthy ecological relationships, animal-related policies (such Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88 as the Endangered Species Act), or for certain (charismatic) species over others (Kellert, 1980, 60). Kellert has minimized attitudes that were more supportive of animal rights, probably because these views were at the time not considered seriously (philosophically or pragmatically), and surely also because the research on attitudes toward animals was up until recently being funded by wildlife management agencies, that have held contempt for these perspectives. Thus traditional or Kellert-related attitudes research may well have contributed to the lack of mutual understanding on animals that continues to exist. Some problems have been more evident, namely with the questions that Kellert drafted to support each attitude in his typology. Indeed these questions may no longer meaningfully reflect the attitude, because questions were less than perfect to begin with or because societal conditions have changed the tenor or urgency of the question for instance. This was especially the case of questions designed to elicit the moralistic (Kaltenbom, Bjerke, Vittersp 1999) and negativistic attitudes (on being afraid to touch a snake, or having an aversion to insects when this ‘aversion’ is actually well- founded). Questions may no longer be considered as reflecting a particular attitude. For instance, in the assumption that someone would not touch an animal because of fear or dislike, when a person might not want to touch an animal in consideration of the stress it might cause the animal, a choice more likely based on an ‘animal rights’ attitude! Importantly, other inconsistent results have been discussed by Czech, Krausman and Borkhataria (1998, 1109) who noted that: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89 people may consider it politically incorrect to admit a preference based on appearance or monetary value because it is politically incorrect to discriminate among humans on the basis of race and class. Finally, in part because Kellert has regarded attitudes as static entities (which was the standard perspective until very recently), some of his findings have misled researchers. For instance, rural inhabitants who were considered more utilitarian (see also Edgell and Nowell, 1989, 293) and more knowledgeable about wildlife (Kellert 1984), are arguably no longer so, because a substantial population of urbanites have moved to rural regions (because of environmental amenities), and their knowledge about animals and attitudes may be quite different than expected (Brunson and Steel, 1996, 69). Similarly, people— a substantial number in the 1990s— who immigrated to US cities may also put Kellert’s findings in question. 3.3.3.3 New concerns in social theory The most innovative works on attitudes toward animals have been generated in the midst of a more emphatically contextual and multidisciplinary trend, whereby researchers other than psychologists for instance have been willing to employ new strategies in a more concerted effort to explain attitudes and related contradictions. While these efforts have not radicalized attitudinal research, still a certain optimism has been generated. For instance, in their work on predictive validity of attitudinal research and wildlife management strategies, Bright and Manfredo (1995) developed a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90 series of questionnaires that comprised notions of attitude-strength (extremity and certainty), personal salience of and available information about animals, and thus more thoughtfully combined psychological and sociological explanation. In their telephone and mail survey of people’s attitudes toward rangeland management, Brunson and Steel (1996) reduced the dimensional scale to three attitudes (dominionism/religious/materialist, ethics/biocentrism/natural harmony, and science/rational/technical). With their findings they suggested that “the more humans learn, the more they are likely to encounter value conflict,” and that this leads to seemingly inconsistent attitudes (73). They noted that if a respondent is not familiar with a topic of inquiry, then he or she may construct an opinion on the spot. The authors reflected on the possibility that measurement creates public opinion rather than captures it, and on the consequences this has for survey construction. Driscoll (1995) used six dimensions of activities reflecting a quality of animal treatment (product testing, for instance) and put ‘human’ in her animal preference list. And in their survey on support for wolf reintroduction, Bright and Manfredo (1996) again used a fairly standard conceptual framework but broke down the cognitive component of the survey and added a moderating variable that is situation-oriented. They found that factual information about wolf ecology is not what guides people’s attitudes, and instead identified the meaning they ascribed to this particular animal (under the rubric of ‘ideal world beliefs’) and the influence this knowledge in turn has on answers. They concluded that, in this situation at least, symbolism (or Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91 representation) is more effective in shaping people’s attitude than knowledge. This work is significant in that it steps away from long standing conceptual assumptions about what consists in knowledge and brings together psychological and sociological explanation of attitudes. Pifer, Shimizu and Pifer (1994) also highlight the lack of correlation between knowledge and attitudes, and suggest that animal rights movements are tantamount to spiritual persuasion groups, and that more specifical understandings in the sociology of religion might inform these groups’ attitudes. Some researchers have employed other methodologies than survey questionnaires, such as focus groups. The best examples of this are presented in a compilation of research conducted for the Fishing and Boating Partnership Council by Mark Dudda and his research group (Responsive Management 1998). Here the point was not attitudes per se, but an inquiry into motivations for hunting or fishing. The focus group approach proved a sensitive tool to learn the ‘why’ of attitudes and even permitted the design of more responsive educative programs (341). In summary, traditional research on attitudes toward animals is gradually moving away from its traditional descriptive emphasis, its bias against certain attitudes or their determinants (such as gender), its static definition of attitudes, and even from survey questionnaires. Surveys have become more contextualized and researchers are more at ease to address inherent contradictions, including by using more qualitative approaches. Most of all, domains of attitudes were identified and these have served to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92 broaden the research from a psychological to an increasingly sociological explanation for attitudes. And, researchers are becoming more aware of the socio-cultural variables that affect attitudes, including those affecting how surveys are conducted. 3.4 CONCLUSION Current interest in animals is based on social movements such as environmentalism and the animal rights movement that began in the 1960-70s. These movements spurred academic interest in the changing history of American attitudes towards nature, and provoked reflection on the genesis of attitudes. From the late 1970s, researchers beginning with Kellert (1979; with Berry 1980) specifically turned to consider individual attitudes toward animals and conducted large scale surveys with both the general public and ‘animal specialists.’ This research produced valuable data, as well as the first comprehensive typology of attitudes toward animals. But as with much attitudinal research in psychology, studies of attitudes toward animals had reached a stalemate by the 1980s: attitude formation and change could not be confidently explained and their complexity seemed inexorable. In the 1990s, traditional attitudes research was criticized for its individualistic perspective but, thanks largely to multidisciplinary input, attitudes are now coming to be understood as resulting from a wider range of factors. Such a reconceptualization of attitudes could not be taking place without the influence of poststructural social theory, where agency and identity have moved to the forefront of concerns. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93 However some important problems remain today. First, few researchers have yet to employ methodologies other than survey questionnaires, despite the stubborn difficulties they pose and, especially, the biases they introduce. Surveys are notorious for not getting at the ‘why’ of attitudes and, while they may record that contradictions exist, they are usually not designed to, for instance, help make sense of the complex attitudinal positions people may assume on account of strategic identity repositioning. Thus the reliance on surveys may have especially hindered the role played by culture— and relatedly ethnicity— on attitudes toward animals, starting with the fact that most surveys have been conducted with white people most of all. Very little information has been forthcoming on cultural differences on attitudes toward animals. Kellert’s emphasis on demographic characteristics such as race did inspire researchers like Dolin (1988) to propose that relevant (according to the ethnicity of the respondent) variables be incorporated into survey questions, as well as include inquiries about urban animals that for people living in inner cities know about (rather than wilderness animals). On few occasions were these suggestions heeded, instead most surveys have centered on the white American population nearly exclusively, or as the standard from which to compare all ‘others.’ In her survey, Whitley (1998) used an innovative model of attitudes that was framed within local and global contexts, included questions about the acceptability of various culturally related practices affecting animals, and asked respondents about their arrival age and length of residency in the U.S. Interestingly, she found that tolerance for controversial animal Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94 related practices by people of other cultures was low. But her survey was limited to visitors of a science museum who had regular exposure to science and museums. Moreover, surveys are not useful in clarifying relationships between place, culture, and attitudes, and this was long reinforced in psychology, a field that first and foremost supported assimilation of ‘non mainstream’ people (nonEnglish speaking people, disabled people) into mainstream society (Nelson and Tienda, 1985,49). A significant problem that still endures, is the lack of conceptual model from which researchers knowingly develop their interpretation of survey results. This has especially weakened the meaningfiilness of the research, and perhaps also, contributed to some misunderstandings of findings and led to some clear gaps in the understanding of attitude formation. One of these being that little attention has been paid to local animal oriented organizations, such as zoos, refuges, and shelters— related to place and culture— , that play a varying but important role in how people think and treat animals. These organizations do so by setting norms for human-animal interaction patterns, creating a variety of diverse images of animals through publications and media exposure, and may publicize their interpretation in various forms according to cultural/ethnic and class differences. This lack of attention to structural or institutional context and the failure of organizational or nonprofit sector research to address animal-oriented groups, means that the array of local organizations involved in urban animal management and public education, has yet to be assessed with regard to their influence on attitudes. For instance, Czech, Krausman and Borkhataria (1998, 1110) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95 found that people had positive attitudes toward fish, but did not link these attitudes to the fact that more people go to aquariums than ever before, and thus that this attitude may well be presently reinforced in an important manner. This is particularly unfortunate because their study was aimed at comparing species preference of the general public with those ‘preferred’ by animal organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund. Also— and this is related to the bias against culture— in the isolated instances of when animal related organizations are considered, little is made of their own organizational perspectives. For instance, a natural science museum has a scientific (at least taxonomic) emphasis, but little is made of the potential attitudinal difference between visitors (and non visitors) and the exhibits. Finally, the research on attitudes toward animals has shown some important biases in that large groups of animals have long been ignored. This is the case of marine animals. More exactly, the research that has been conducted on marine animals has been directed at the attitudes of narrow segments of the human population, specific species, or particular management issues or user-groups critical to fish and wildlife agency mission support (e.g., anglers, Fletcher and King, 1987; commercial fisheries management, Kellert, Gibbs, and Wohlgenant, 1995; attitudes toward fish and wildlife management, Responsive Management, 1998; museum visitors’ attitudes toward marine animals, Whitley, 1998). This is slowly changing because of increasingly contentious disputes over the Marine Mammal Protection Act (1973, reenacted in 1994), an unusual law that protects predatory animals although not necessarily Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96 endangered. Thus this situation has warranted a concentrated effort to appraise popular sentiment on the part of a wide range of agencies (from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which includes the National Ocean Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, to the Humane Society of the United States). Yet their surveys so far have only provided an uneven description of people’s cultural ties to marine animals and no explanation for processes, despite the fact that, anecdotally at least, culture clearly plays a critical role in shaping these attitudes. Today, traditional research on attitudes toward animals is understood as having promoted misunderstandings at critical levels: not only did it universalize Western white male attitudes to those of all peoples, but it has also employed unproblematized definitions of ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ which are no longer credible (even) in academia. From feminist, and more recently, cultural, post-colonial and ethnic studies, a critical reassessment and re-theorization of both nature and culture is taking place. This trend is based on the understanding that all human relations are intrinsically socially produced and defined by power relations. As explained in Chapter Two, this dissertation is based on such reconceptualizations, and also highlights the role of place in the formation of attitudes. As such it will provide a tangible ‘piece of the puzzle’ in how place conceptually fits in defining human-non human relations. This research will contribute to attitudinal research, in its innovative use of a methodology other than questionnaire surveys, its rootedness and situatedness in a conceptual framework that (in addition) is geographic and place-based, and in the fact that it involves low income Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. inner city women of different ethnicities and cultural traditions, marine animal oriented organizations, and marine animals— all of whom have fared very poorly previous attitudinal research. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER FOUR- FOCUS GROUPS AND INTERVIEWS: SELECTION, PROCEDURE, AND INTERPRETATIVE APPROACHES 4.1 INTRODUCTION In this research I seek to identify how cultural factors might shape and reshape attitudes toward marine animals. In the previous Chapter, I argued that a shift away from traditional attitudinal surveys was both necessary and desirable, in order to achieve more subtle differentiations and obtain more information on attitudes. A qualitative approach can shed more light on the ‘why’ of attitudes than surveys, which only tell part of story (Cunningham, 1995, 89). In particular, focus groups and interviews have the clear advantage in that they can generate higher response rates and fewer ‘don’t know’ answers, provide more opportunity for respondents to explain an answer, and for researchers to observe participants so that their hesitation, reluctance or enthusiasm can be part and parcel of the discussion’s interpretation (Babbie, 1994, 264-5). In addition, and as I shall explain in this Chapter, a more critical reconsideration has been brought into the interpretation of both focus groups and interviews and, as a result, they have become more powerful tools on which to base interpretations and obtain explanations. Thus focus groups and interviews were selected as the approach most adequate to help answer the dissertation’s research questions. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99 Focus group discussions are ideal vehicles to generate opinions, anecdotes and memories, and subtle explanations from people whose primary concerns are not directed at the discussion’s topic, such as their attitudes toward marine animals. In this way, this methodology provides an avenue for investigating complex behaviors and motivations, and offer a valuable opportunity for feedbacks (Morgan, 1993, 15). For researchers, focus groups can provide a background of information on which they can for instance design more sensitive survey questionnaires later, clarify the best language in which to pose questions, and identify links between ideas and beliefs that together may shape attitudes. In this research, the focus groups were conducted by a team of graduate and undergraduate students under the leadership of Dr Jennifer Wolch who moderated all the focus groups (except those in Cantonese and Spanish). A graduate student, Alec Brownlow, helped Dr Wolch and I to fashion a coding tree and code the discussions, and coordinated their audio recording. Marcie Griffith, an undergraduate student, arrived toward the end of the project and helped with the transcription of the last focus group. The analysis of the focus groups’ attitudes toward marine animals is solely my own, although the discussions were analyzed subsequently by the team in terms of the participants’ general attitudes toward animals. An interview is a face-to-face (or telephone) exchange methodology that is typically more suitable for speaking to experts for instance, because they have specific and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100 already developed notions about the topic at hand, notions which they are likely to reshape or explain differently in a group’s presence. Experts are also more apt to know and readily discuss the strength of their attitudinal position, and to articulate this position vis a vis related issues. As experts they are not likely to be ‘shy’ and may feel that individual (and more exclusive) attention is a privilege they are ‘due.’ I conducted all the interviews but initially received valuable assistance from Tula Top (an undergraduate student), in the development of the AOO inventory from which interviewees were subsequently selected. With this chapter, I detail how focus groups and interviews were employed by the research team and myself. First, I provide a general background of the focus group approach along with more recent developments in how they are conceived, employed and interpreted. I describe how the related field procedures of this research were designed, and lay out the analytic techniques that were used to interpret the ensuing discussions. Second, I turn my attention to interviews and to their general applications. Then I proceed by considering in some details the organizational context of animal oriented organizations (AOOs) in Los Angeles, an important attitudinal context which is rarely if ever considered. This context is at the root of my use of interviews and, especially, helped me shape my interview questions. Marine animal oriented organizations (MAOOs) specifically will be presented in Chapter Six. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4.2 FOCUS GROUPS AS RESEARCH TOOL 101 The focus group (or group depth interview) is a technique that involves bringing a relatively heterogenous group of eight to twelve people together to discuss an issue in the presence of a moderator. The moderator elicits a range of opinions and keeps the discussion from straying off course. This technique was developed over fifty years ago by sociologists who first sought to expand their understanding of attitudes. But it was psychologists who most advanced the method by clarifying some of the processes of self-disclosure and of group dynamics in therapy. In the 1960s, focus groups were almost exclusively used in market and audience research and this applied agenda promoted the standardization of practice. During this time, this method declined in attitudes research. Instead questionnaire surveys supplanted the methods, because results lent themselves more naturally to quantitative analysis. Today social scientists are enlarging the purview of focus groups. This critical influence is beginning to redefine why, when and how focus groups are used. In this Chapter section I present conceptual and practical issues relating to focus groups. First I provide a general background to the technique. Second I describe how focus groups were conducted by the research team, based on both traditional and more contemporary approaches. And lastly, I explain the interpretative strategies that inform this research. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 4.2.1 TRENDS IN FOCUS GROUPS Since the mid 1940s focus groups have been used to assess people’s opinions, attitudes and motivations. Early works can be traced to Bogardus in the 1920s, but Merton and Kendall are more generally credited with the technique’s origin in the 1940s (with works on the effectiveness of radio morale messages during World War H). Today researchers across many fields use focus groups, but with few exceptions, the literature they have produced has been limited to specialized articles and ‘how-to’ books. Over the last ten years however this trend has been changing. When sociologists Merton and Kendall began to use and promote focus groups, they did so because they understood that the technique could clarify mechanisms of attitude formation and thus bypass some of the problems of survey questionnaires. By the 1950s, psychologists employed in advertising agencies began to conduct focus groups for marketing and audience research. Since then, focus groups have been widely used for everything from keeping a finger on the pulse of American consumers to institutional evaluations, political polling, museum visitor studies, and jury selections. At first, they were run in the homes of researchers or in hotel rooms, but since then may take place in elaborate facilities equipped with one-way mirrors and audio-visual equipment. By the late 1980s, practitioners Goldman and McDonald (1987) wrote that focus groups were “one of the most important, the most widely used, and arguably, the most psychologically valid tool of market research” (1). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 Clinical psychology has had a significant influence on focus group research. Indeed Stewart and Shamdasani (1990, 141) noted that “there are few areas in the social sciences that have been studied as carefully and intensively as the dynamics of small groups.” And by the 1960s this research had been enhanced by psychotherapeutic research on the characterization of personality types and by works on nonverbal aspects of group interaction. According to Goldman and McDonald (1987), the legacy of psychotherapy in the development of focus groups has been “the pursuit of unconscious motivation and their application of probing techniques designed to expose those motives without altering them” (3). In the 1970s, with the emphasis on quantitative analysis in the social sciences, and on surveys in attitudinal research, especially declined in the non market oriented research on attitudes. In the mid 1980s however, sociologists and anthropologists were turning to qualitative methods, in their quest for more “insightful findings and ecologically valid, interpretative techniques” (Lunt and Livingstone, 1996, 79), and this search led them to a reconsideration of focus groups. A radical trend emerged from this qualitative shift in the social sciences whereby the focus group discussion is today understood as a socially situated communication. This characterization has been in response to the reductionist concerns of the perceived psychologism and functionalism of early approaches. Such concerns were in the offing in sociology, beginning perhaps with Blummer in the late 1960s (van den Hoonard, 1997, 6) and taking full shape in psychology by the 1980s (see Farr and Moscovici Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104 1984). More recently, critical advances have been made by researchers such as Lunt and Livingstone in communication studies (1996) and by human geographers in an issue of Area (1996) that was devoted to innovative and/or critical uses of the technique. Their interpretation is typically based on the belief that the formation of attitudes is dynamic and reflects social processes, and that group discussions can reveal how beliefs and convictions emerge from dialogical processes. In this respect, Stewart and Shamdasani (1990, 141) write that the “focus group is itself a research instrument.” Increasingly, some focus groups are understood as potentially empowering participants in the research process (Swenson, Griswold and Kleiber, 1992, 463). Focus groups are undergoing a conceptual reappraisal, a reappraisal with specific consequences for how they are structured and analyzed. In sum, focus group research was shaped by early emphasis on quantification, followed by a greater appreciation for qualitative research. The influence of practitioners in sociology, marketing and psychology has played the most central role in this evolutionary process. A broad spectrum of trends can be identified today, from mainstream practice which relies on psychological models and quantitative data, to a more critical approach inspired by more sociological models of attitude formation and by a reconceptualization of research (including researcher and research participants) in society. Both traditions are present in social geography’s relatively recent use of focus groups, with some geographers leading the assertion that focus groups are a legitimate tool of new critical social research. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105 4.2.2 USING FOCUS GROUPS A braiding of traditions has given shape to how focus groups are conducted and interpreted today. Academics have new expectations of focus groups, and the nature of participants has even changed (they are more heterogenous and research-sawy). As a result, there is little consensus on how to structure focus groups or analyze results, and because of this, this methodology stands at a defining moment. After I examine standard practice in focus group research, I sketch out the trends and more critical perspectives that are shaping current approaches. 4.2.2.1 Standard focus group practice Most practitioners of focus groups initially turn to ‘how-to’ books for a review of standard practice. These are based on experience, anecdotal evidence, and group research in psychology. According to such books and manuals, ideal groups are homogenous in demographic composition, and consist of eight to twelve people who are strangers to one another. Participant recruitment is achieved by telephone or written communication. Discussions last for up to two hours and the moderator is expected to lead unobtrusively.1 Questions are semi-structured and, as a rule of thumb, This topic is typically the object of extensive discussions. It is worthwhile to note that although women have played an important role in developing focus group research, their acting as moderators would have been considered wrong until the 1960s— even by a female researcher of professional notoriety (for example, see Axelrod in Higginbottam et al., 1979, 52). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106 four group meetings suffice to saturate the topic to satisfaction (Billson, 1994, 35). The selection of appropriate facility and seating arrangements (usually participants face each other) receive key consideration (see for instance Basch 1987). Discussions are taped, transcribed, and analyzed. This analysis may then be ‘triangulated’ with other (usually quantitative) methods, or less frequently stand alone as research results.2 According to this mainstream perspective, the main advantages of focus groups over individual interviews are that they are quicker than individual interviews and that participants feel more comfortable in a group (Basch, 1987, 434-5). In this light, focus groups are also advantageous in that they allow participants more time to reflect on what is being said, and thus that they can add or amend pertinent points. This may spur other thoughts and memories and lead to the emergence of contrasting perspectives or of consensus (Lofland and Lofland, 1995, 21). How much information people divulge is assumed to depend on their level of comfort. Typical of this view, Stewart and Shamdasani (1990, 33) describe three influences that bear on a successful discussion: intrapersonal or demographic characteristics, interpersonal or social characteristics that inform inclusion and exclusion, and environmental conditions.3 Focus groups are intended to take place in a comfortable setting where all will feel free to share opinions, beliefs and values, “while observers attempt to infer unconscious motivations from their interactions” (Goss, 1996a, 113). Finally focus groups can be 2 In 1966 Morgan found that 40% o f focus groups were used alone (in Minnis et al., 1997,41). Lofland and Lofland (1995, 21) note that persons may not be in the same physical environment, and instead ‘meet’ via electronic media. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107 used to gamer information on which to build survey questionnaire, by providing a background of relevant concerns and the appropriate non academic language to express these. According to critics, the standard use of focus groups is problematic in two important ways. First, there is the problem that discussions cannot be replicated, and relatedly, that accuracy is difficult to ensure. Indeed, as Merton long ago warned, participants may partake in heated discussions over topics to which they normally “ascribe little importance” (Lunt and Livingstone, 1996, 91), and thus give a false impression of their interests. Second, there is a problem of representability since focus groups can only provide a small sample of opinions. Traditionally the dilemma of reliability and of representability have been negotiated by combining focus groups with other methods, such as by linking focus groups to support quantitative findings or vice versa. 4.2.2.2 Critical focus group research Social scientists have addressed the inherent problems of mainstream practice by focusing on validity and especially interpretation instead of reliability and by providing explanations in the context of postmodern analysis. Post-positivist ethnography and feminism have been especially important influences. Critical focus group research emphasizes properties such as discourse, meaning and power, dramaturgy, and the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108 effects (including beneficial effects) of research on participants. A key interest of this research lies in the social construction of attitudes, in aspects of collaborative performance in group discussions, and “on meanings, narratives, explanations, accounts and anecdotes” (Longhurst, 1996, 143). Interpretative methods are being rethought of in terms of relationship between researcher and researched, with an increased emphasis on trust building. In addition Goss (1996b) sees a clear advantage in focus groups that “allow participants to negotiate a story in order to reach a representative consensus, or at least to ‘agree to disagree’” (115). So if on one hand reliability is forgone in this sort of qualitative research (due to sample size), validity on the other hand may be improved. Focus groups that are designed along these critical premises are used with fewer logistical constraints. This is in part because researchers try to be more sensitive to difference and context (and thus each case and topic), and in part because they are more willing to be experimental to arrive at more nuanced meanings. Opinions range widely but the researchers’ willingness behind greater methodological flexibility are interesting to note. On the topic of demographic composition, Vaughn, Schumm, and Sinagub (1996, 62-63) favor keeping group characteristics homogenous and caution that mixing genders can lead to conformity, while groups of same gender participants lead to the emergence of leaders. While this result is not in dispute, researchers such as Burgess (1996, 131) and Holbrook (1996, 137) note that the emergence of these dynamics can clarify real life processes of attitude formation, and thus that Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109 heterogenous groups can produce useful results. The same goes for the number of participants groups should have, and whether it is important or not that participants know each other. In fact, Agar and MacDonald (1995, 79) noted that recruitment strategy (such as the ‘snowball’ technique which relies on networks of acquaintances from research support agencies or participants themselves) can make it inherently difficult to get participants who are strangers to each other, and thus that researchers should think through the impact of their familiarity. Meanwhile Kitzinger (1994, 105) notes that there are advantages to having participants who are familiar with each other, in that they may more readily express themselves. The role of the moderator is also being reconsidered. Vaughn, Schumm, and Sinagub (1996, 85-87) write that this person should be familiar with the topic of discussion, but not act as expert. Others even insist that the moderator ‘act’ as if he/she knew little and is learning from the group. But Goss (1996b, 119) believes that discussions are more productive when it is the main researcher who acts as moderator and this is substantiated by Zeigler and Brunn (1996, 125). Similarly there is great variance of opinion on how many meetings are generally required to saturate a topic, and agreement only on that it depends on the topic or conceptual framework. Again Goss (1996a, 114) emphasizes that the method can sustain greater flexibility than ‘how-to’ books intimate. The choice of facility is, on the other hand, given less debate, although the literature reveals examples of innovative solutions. Burgess (1996, 131), for instance, in her work on fear and wilderness, combines the method of focus group with Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110 that of participant observation, and walked participants through nearby woods before beginning the sessions. What is most often discussed in critical focus group research is how discussions should be interpreted. As with mainstream focus group research, discussions are generally taped and transcribed. Also an assistant records broad themes and directions as well as facial expressions and other demeanor. These notes facilitate a debriefing period (with or without participants) immediately afterward. Texts are transcribed as soon as possible, and are reviewed by as many of those that were present as possible. Indices are then produced, and a report is group written. Final interpretations are read by people in several fields (Burgess, Limb, and Harrison, 1988a, 321-2). Both how groups are conducted and discussions interpreted vary widely. Some analyses rely on psychoanalysis, in an effort to clarify the social construction of the discussions. As Burgess, Limb, and Harrison write: “[psychoanalytic theory proposes individuality is constructed within the social world” (1988a, 313). They frame this by adding that: empirically, group analytic practice explicitly recognizes the significance of context in any interpretation of discourse; it argues that the content of conversations within a group is inseparable from the social structures and the processes o f communication within which it is spoken” (it. in text) {ibid., 1988b, 457-8). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I l l Other analytical tools are semiotics and, more often today, discourse analysis. Important problems persist as to the interpretation of discussions (Baxter and Eyles, 1997, 505), such as focus group discussions. Few criteria of interpretation are uniformly applied and this leaves this particular methodology open for much criticism. A greater measure of flexibility indeed can open the door to the researchers’ biased interpretation, but it can also mean a more significant engagement with the complexities of opinion-making for instance, and this has sorely been lacking until now. More importantly perhaps, postcolonial and feminist theory are problematizing the discursive relationship between researcher and participants. First, and because we are white researchers, our interpretation of the discussions must be particularly sensitive to our own construction of whiteness, and how privilege shapes everything from the questions we ask to more subtle signs of approval or disapproval (Frankenberg, 1993, 285-287). Second, we must also understand that focus group participants for instance, who in this research are marginalized peoples of color, experience life that as inherently coded by what Mohanty, Russo and Torres write, “structural domination” (1991, 52) with a radically different frame of reference (Collins, 1998, xiii). For instance they may avoid criticizing mainstream practice, or be more cautious to not reenforce mainstream stereotype, or to speak out against whites and racism. To summarize, while some problems remain with the focus group approach, the technique is now used to explore complex topics. For instance in geography, Zeigler Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112 and Brunn (1996, 124) examine not only attitudes before and after a natural disaster, but also the coping strategies that people deploy when catastrophe strikes. Focus groups are also used with more specific objectives in mind than had been the case earlier, such as to clarify potential conflicts for instance. Meanwhile, other researchers are taking on slippery topics that mesh societal trends, such as changing attitudes toward nature, with ethnic and cultural difference. In the social sciences the critical rethinking of focus groups has opened new topics and freed methodological strategies. 4.2.3 DESIGNING THE FOCUS GROUP APPROACH This research seeks to clarify the relationship between culture and attitudes toward marine animals by focusing on the Los Angeles metropolitan region where massive immigrant flows from Mexico, Central America, and Asia as well as socioeconomic polarization have led to some of the highest levels of population diversity in the nation. To achieve this, the research team employed both well-tested and newer, more flexible focus group approaches. Because focus group research is in critical transition, whereby theory may well have outpaced practice, we carefully considered the very flexibility with which we would employ the method. These considerations are discussed in this section, with first an examination of the segmentation, recruitment and moderation of our focus groups where diversity is highlighted. Then I explain how the discussions were interpreted and analyzed. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113 The research team gave careful consideration to the segmentation of the groups’ participants. The focus groups were composed entirely of women for two reasons. First and as mentioned earlier, attitudinal research has documented some differences in the dynamics of mixed vs. single gender groups. We decided to control for these variations by having all participants be of the same gender. Then, females were selected in particular because, although gender differences in attitudes toward animals have long been noted, it is only recently that women’s attitudes have been investigated. According to standard practice, participants of each focus group should share a high degree of cultural and ethnic homogeneity, in order to allow for free-flowing discussions and to facilitate analysis. Researchers such as Lunt and Livingstone (1996, 91) support a segmentation that is based on shared interests and one that can establish confidence, provide more analytical input, and give an opportunity to explore contradictions. This was also of importance to us since we sought to gamer information on culturally specific behaviors and attitudes of the various groups that, according to the 1990 census, best reflect the Los Angeles population of color. We did not reject conducting a white group but also did not consider doing so because whites are the object of countless studies. Also as Stanfield II writes in Race and Ethnicity in Research Methods (1993): ... it is commonplace for scholars, particularly scholars of color, to be criticized for conducting studies with no comparative white samples or populations. The subtle evolutionary presumptions underlying such criticism are more than apparent: People of color in many social science circles are not relevant enough to stand on their own two feet in analysis; unless they are compared with whites, they have no value in important social science circles. (27) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114 The research team thus conducted five groups of up to eleven participants, with each group being entirely composed of low-income African American, Latina, Chicana, Chinese or Filipina women, living in the inner city. By selecting participants of the same gender, ethnicity and class for each group, we helped foster rich discussions that were of topical interest to most in every group. To elicit information that is specifically culturally relevant, we gave careful consideration to the recruitment of participants. In her work with African American participants, Jarrett (1993) argues that recruitment is the single most important factor in engaging hard-to-reach populations (such as ours) (199). As with Jarrett’s recruitment strategy, participants were pooled through community groups and affiliate agencies that provide various housing and social services to local low-income residents, instead of through random sampling, telephone calls, or letters of invitation. The ‘snowball’ technique was then used to further recruit the requisite number of participants. We considered whether it would be a problem if people knew each other (as people often do when they belong to the same organizations), and decided that, as long as participants did not know each other on the basis of a shared interest in the environment or about animals, their familiarity with each other would not hinder them from speaking. The recruitment of participant is further detailed in Chapter Five. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115 To remind them of the focus group date, participants were telephoned on the evening prior to the discussion, and given further reassurance as to the confidentiality of the discussion. Once they arrived on site, they filled out a basic information sheet (see appendix B) inquiring into whether they knew each other, their age and education, place of birth and length of Los Angeles residency, membership in an environmental organization, and interactions with animals (through work or pet ownership). This provided the research basic demographic information insuring that each participant indeed belonged in the target group. It also gave us a general idea about their background, and enriched our interpretative conclusions. Socio-economic status and inner-city residence were assumed from the participants’ relationship to the community center from which they were recruited. Such assumptions were made to reduce both redundancy and the potential for invasive questioning. Altogether, we were conscious that we knew far little about most of these women, about their frequency of return to their native country for instance, especially within the confines of time and of our knowledge and understanding of each of their cultures, and that this would necessarily limit our ability to make specific inferences about important factors of attitude formation. However we also felt that important processes would become identifiable even with these limitations. Next we faced the particular challenge posed by moderating such ethnically and linguistically diverse focus groups. According to mainstream focus group research, the ethnicity of the moderator and of participants should be the same (Vaughn, Schumm, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116 and Sinagub, 1996, 152). Being that each group is ethnically and culturally different from the other, and that having a different moderator for each group would introduce more complexity, we could not follow this advice. In fact, Goldman and MacDonald (1987, 149-50) argue that simply because the moderator is of the same ethnicity as the respondents does not mean that a rapport will emerge between them. And Morgan (1993) has pointed that there are advantages to the moderator being ‘different:’ for instance this may allow him or her to ask ‘basic’ questions that are useful to clarify basic attitudes and apply particularly well to research about ‘taken for granted’ values and categorizations (69). We believe that, on the basis of these related works and given a non-judgmental atmosphere and sensitively crafted questions, we successfully downplayed the importance of the moderator’s ethnicity (white native-born female), and provided participants with a desire to explain fundamental and culture specific values by highlighting their cultural identity instead. Because the moderator acted as a detached but expert observer, and because all participants were of a similar background in each group, competing views emerged but were given wide berth by all present. However we had to use a translator to act as moderator in the Latina and the Chinese groups in order to gamer stories and anecdotes from people who spoke little English. In the first instance, the moderator had been a participant of the Chicana group and was thus well prepared for her task. In the second instance, a professional translator was hired and trained. For four of the five groups, a note-taker and technical audio equipment assistant were present. For the Latina focus group a Spanish speaker was hired to take notes of speaker order. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117 Beyond considering how we would conduct these different groups in terms of participant composition, recruitment and moderator role, we decided to follow mainstream practice in all other aspects. We selected the facilities where focus groups were conducted to insure that they were non-threatening and private, and close to participants’ residency or workplace. Most groups met in community agency premises, a community center meeting room for example. Participants were given an honorarium of $25.00 to make up for any transport and childcare costs. Discussions lasted up to two hours and light refreshments were served. Participants (and our community agency liaisons) were promptly thanked in a letter, and a transcript of the discussion was later mailed to those who expressed interest in receiving a copy. Except for some technical difficulties and some inexperience on the part of the professional translator of the Chinese group, we consider all focus groups to have been a success: participants were informative and we were provided rich and sensitive material. More over, participants seemed to enjoy the process: participation was nearly complete, discussions were lively and in most instances lasted longer than scheduled due to general enthusiasm. 4.2.4 INTERPRETING CROSS-CULTURAL FOCUS GROUPS In conducting focus groups we aimed to augment the cross-cultural information on attitudes toward animals, and to increase the understanding of attitudes and behaviors among low-income, inner-city communities of color, especially those of women. Particular effort was devoted to eliciting finely-textured accounts that put attitudes into Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118 cultural and social class context, delineating linkages between attitudes and behavioral interaction patterns, and (in the case of immigrants) in understanding how and why culturally-based attitudes and behavior might for instance attenuate with duration of residence in the U.S. My interpretation of the focus group discussions was based on both mainstream and critical approaches. Standard procedure was applied in terms of obtaining direct information about the participants’ practices relating to animals, identifying their knowledge, and classifying their attitudes, for instance. By conducting a group of Chicanas and one of Latinas, I was provided separate but related perspectives on marine animals as well as how these perspectives are tied to traditions, family life, and life in the US, according to age, immigration (from the same country or comparable region) and acculturation. Within this, factors that emerged through group reflexivity and the dynamics between participants were clarified. In groups where leaders emerged (a typical feature of single gender groups) I observed how this characteristic arose, whether and how this challenged others in the group or consolidated agreement instead, and how contradictory views were handled. This occurred in the African American and Filipina groups in particular and provided me an opportunity to better understand how participants justified their attitudes and how these are related to broader cultural models, about what it means to be of a particular ethnic group or to feel and be thought of as ‘different.’ All groups imparted valuable Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119 (and sometimes surprising) perspectives on mainstream Anglo American life as it relates to animals, especially marine animals. In the following sections, I give a step by step description of the methods that guided me in the interpretation of the group discussions, namely (1) how the questions were designed and discussions coded, (2) how I selected and made use of a qualitative analysis software package to help identify variants of animal-related themes, and finally (3) how I identified cultural models of attitudes. 4.2.4.1 Designing the questions and coding scheme As described in the previous section, participants filled a basic information sheet that also included questions about ‘pet ownership’ and work experience with animals (see appendix B). This and all other questions were piloted in an ethnically mixed group which provided us excellent feedback. Once the written questions were answered, the moderator opened the discussion by introducing herself and the assistant(s), presenting the topic, and insuring participants of their anonymity (see appendix C). Participants were then invited to introduce themselves, and the moderator put forth two warm-up questions on the desirability of owning wild animals as pets, and on reactions to wild and potentially dangerous animals roaming city streets. Both of these questions were based on current news events and served to funnel the discussion toward the widest possible range of interactions (with animals at home, in the city, in the wilderness), while eliciting more and more personal anecdotes, recollections and attitudes. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120 The questions that followed were based on six topics, namely “Interactions with Southern California marine wildlife,” “Background training, family and cultural traditions,” “Cultural conflicts,” “Cultural practices of others”,5 “General environmental values,” and “Gender differences.” Most of these dealt with a marine issue, such as family fishing practices, or remedial actions during and after natural hazards such as El Nino. Each topic was addressed through several questions and cues. Most of the time, few questions were necessary to generate a discussion between several participants at least, and thus not all questions (within a topic) were asked. The group discussion was concluded with a brief statement of thanks and an offer to send participants a transcript of the session. In nearly all instances the discussion was prolonged by up to a half hour of open questions and comments from participants. Some of these were particularly revealing and were incorporated in transcripts and in our interpretations. Thus some topics, such as the permission granted an indigenous group to hunt whales, might only be encountered in some of the groups. Discussions were transcribed (and in the case of the Latina discussion, translated) and checked by assistant(s) who had helped administer the focus groups. A coding tree was produced in anticipation of our need to code the discussions (see appendix D). Aside from general demographic information, three categories of statements were identified to best serve the research objectives as well as make the 5 Two versions of this question were fashioned according to the groups’ ethnic identity: in the Chinese and Filipino groups, a Latina practice was described (rodeos) instead of an Asian practice (so- called ‘pet’ eating). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121 extremely rich data more readily usable. These categories were: ‘Experiences and practices' ‘Perceptions and knowledge,' and ‘Values and attitudes' In addition, a ‘Marine' category enabled an in-depth focus on this topic about which little research has been conducted. And in the course of coding the transcripts, other topics emerged which we eventually organized in a ‘Construction o f animals' category. These categories were then subdivided into topics and subtopics. Speakers were listed in terms of the focus group they were part of and were renamed (for the sake of anonymity). Basic information about them came through both the written questionnaire and statements made during the discussion (ie. a pet they may have forgotten to list). ‘Education’ was identified as formal education, but the topic was further elucidated in questions about their animal-related backgrounds, such as partaking in whale watching tours or watching television programs about nature. Length of residency in the U.S. and in Los Angeles was subsequently divided into categories of ‘under’ and ‘over five years.’ The first discussion questions provided information about practices related to animals. In the coding, these were organized by whether they tended to be individual, family, gender-based, cultural or cross-cultural practices. An individual practice was limited to an activity undertaken by the participant, and a family or social network practice tied to activities conducted as a family, while gender-based practices were more directly related to statements about gender divisions, such as catching fish (men) vs. cleaning Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122 fish (women). Meanwhile, cultural practices were understood as culture-wide patterns and cross-cultural practices were those practiced by people outside of their own cultural context. Anecdotes and comments might fall in one or more category. But always, when in doubt, I erred on the ‘conservative’ side and did not ascribe for instance, a gender-based category simply because we were told that it was a man or a woman who had fished. Instead we looked for statements that attributed particular practices more specifically to one of the genders, such as “It was always the men who ...” The coding then also recorded in a second-level category (‘Second topic’) whether the practice had been male or female. Other practices were also cross-coded with ‘Second topics,’ such as religion, recreation, food, service or work animals, companion animals, elimination of animals and an ‘other’ category which came to include animals as medical remedies, animals related to magic, and the slaughter of animals. ‘Religion’ was used to record practices related to formal ritual or custom (in Catholicism for instance), while ‘Magic’ (in the ‘Other’ category) was reserved for everyday practices that gave animals a magical role, such as crickets bringing good luck. ‘Recreation’ was saved for practices that provide both humans and animals a sporting release, like walking one’s dog, while more human-centered activities such as raising chickens for food or cockfighting fell under the ‘Service’ category. ‘Food’ was used to denote statements about the preparation of animals for human consumption; and discussions about health related practices, such as the eating of freshly killed fish for health reasons, were assigned to ‘Medical Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123 remedy’ in the ‘other’ category. Practices related to pet keeping were compiled in the ‘companion’ category. ‘Elimination’ dealt with the dispatch of undesirable animals, such as trapping rats, while ‘slaughter’(in the ‘other’ category) pulled together both slaughtering for consumption and cruel practices, such as holding rats by the tail over pots of boiling water and then drowning them in it. Again, some practices could fall in several of these subtopics. The ‘perception/ knowledge’ category dealt with what people understand and know about animals. Perception and knowledge are likely to have been gained through formal channels such as schooling, but questions also inquired into everyday forms of knowledge that emerge through experience of animals and culture. These insights were organized along the same ‘first-level topic’ as described for practices, with the exception of the ‘cross-cultural’ category. Here, we specified a cross-cultural focus as both including cross-cultural views of other people’s practices as well as reports of changes in the respondent’s own understanding of animals since arriving in Los Angeles (for immigrants), or differences between the respondent’s thinking and that of her parent (for US-bom children of immigrants). The ‘perception/ knowledge’ category was not designed to identify subtopics, such as religion or recreation, and only recorded the gender of a gender-based type of perception/ knowledge, such as “women are kinder to animals.” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124 Values and attitudes are understandings that have undergone a socio-psychological process and thus have become more firmly entrenched than perceptions and knowledge. They may well be contradictory to knowledge yet be held as more meaningful. Values and attitudes may indeed serve other purposes, such as those supporting an ethnic identity. They are substantively held by an individual or within any of the other social categories that were used to characterize ‘practices toward animals’ and ‘perception/ knowledge of animals.’ In this instance, ‘cross-cultural’ was defined as meaning attitudes attributed to others. The subsequent characterization of ‘values/attitudes’ category is largely guided by those identified by Kellert beginning in the late 1970s. This typology has been amended by Kellert himself, other researchers and ourselves, to accommodate changes in scientific thinking about attitudes and in attitudes toward animals known to have occurred over time (see table 4.1). For instance, within ‘Anthropocentrism,’ we collapsed Kellert’s ‘Utilitarian’ and ‘Dominionistic’ category into one, namely ‘Utilitarian-dominionistic.’ This reconceptualization identifies a utilitarianism that is linked to the belief in human superiority and thus control. Meanwhile, our category ‘Utilitarian-stewardship’ is mindful of a utilitarianism that is based on human wise use of animals and thus has different consequences. Similarly, under ‘Biocentrism’ we broke down Kellert’s ‘Ecologistic-scientific-naturalistic’ categories into ‘Environmentalist-naturalist’ and ‘ Environmentalist-stewardship.’ This concretizes the philosophical differences between those who favor preserving the natural environment Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125 as is vs. those who believe that nature must be administered by humans for its own good, through restoration for instance. Table 4.1 Taxonomy of Attitudes toward Marine Animals (partly based on Kellert, 1993,59) Anthropocentric Biocentric Utilitarian-dominionistic Utilitarian-stewardship Animal welfarist Aesthetic Other (Supernatural, Anthropomorphizing) Environmentalist-naturalistic Environmentalist-stewardship Animal rightist Other (Coexistence) We recast Kellert’s ‘Humanistic’ and ‘Moralistic’ values and call them ‘Animal welfarist’ (in the Anthropocentric realm) and ‘Animal rightist’ (in the Biocentric realm). This more specific appellation better reflects the tenor of the statements. In his more recent typology of values, Kellert (1993b) moves away from what he had called the ‘Aesthetic’ category to what he now understands as the ‘Symbolic’ value. We instead distinguish between visual and more magical considerations by retaining the ‘Aesthetic’ category and, in our ‘other’ category keeping track of ‘Supernatural’ ascriptions. This allows us to differentiate statements about, for instance, the beauty of birds vs. those expressing the belief that doves are God-sent emissaries. Our ‘Other’ category also records anthropocentric attitudes in the ‘Anthropomorphizing’ category; and correspondingly in the Biocentric realm, the ‘other’ category included attitudes having to do with ‘Coexistence’ with animals. ‘Coexistence’ relates to statements made about the ability to live peacefully with others such as animals, despite differences. These changes served us well in that we were able to more specifically Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126 categorize statements while providing lee-way for some not generally expressed in a more mainstream context. And by being mindful of the ‘Anthropocentric7‘Biocentric’ divide we were better able to appreciate the relationship between seemingly contradictory attitudes, such as ‘Animal welfarist’ and ‘Utilitarianist-dominionistic’ that often existed within the same statement. Four questions specifically addressed issues about marine wildlife and a separate coding category was assigned to the topics of ‘Experience/practices,’ ‘Perceptions/knowledge,’ and ‘Values/attitudes’ toward marine animals. By keying these statements we were provided an early understanding of the importance of the marine environment for participants. Of course, marine-related statements were also coded according to the more general schema. Finally, three more important topics arose in the discussions and we thus elected to code them. They are distinctions between animals constructed as ‘wild’ or ‘domestic,’ ‘pet’ and ‘not pet,’ and as ‘food’ or ‘not food.’ The discussions relating to these topics clarified the social construction of particular animals and were thus categorized as such. In sum, the coding tree was defined by the research’s focus on the cultural contexts of attitudes toward animals. The coding of the transcripts was an important step in the interpretation of the focus group discussions, by enabling major themes to come forth, and ultimately to form some of the cultural models that underly these attitudes. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127 4.2.4.2 Using the computer software (NU*DIST) and the emergence of animal- related themes NU*DIST (Non-numerical Unstructured Data Indexing Searching and Theorizing) is a qualitative software package that came well recommended to us. After installing and becoming familiar with the program we input the coding tree (divided into ‘root’ and ‘nodes’), the discussions’ transcriptions and the coding we had assigned to all statements. In brief, NU*DIST is designed to retrieve statements within a wide and complex range of search limits, and this across all group discussions. For instance it may recall all statements made by women who do not have a high school degree, and who made ‘Utilitarianistic/ dominionistic’ attitudinal statements and statements about marine-related practices. The complexity of the search is thus dependent on the number of statements made per category. The next step was thus to identify nodes with no or few statements, or ‘empty’ nodes. This step furthered the interpretation by leading me to ask how variables (such as the ‘Aesthetic Value/attitude’), which had been of significant relevance to other research on attitudes toward animal, generated so little response at all levels (‘individual, family/social network’, etc) in our discussions? Was it an error of coding or a question bias? Or was the Aesthetic attitude related to one other or more variables that was/were not encountered among participants6 ? On the other hand, topics that had emerged as the transcripts were being coded (and had 6 The aesthetic attitude was however present when questions became more species-specific. The fact that few of the questions inquired into species-specific appreciation probably explain the groups’ non-expression of an aesthetic attitude. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128 been temporarily categorized as ‘free node’ but then reined in and re-categorized as e.g. issues in the ‘social construction of animals’) enriched the understanding of their meaningfulness for participants. In this manner, the software package not only offered us flexibility and a shortcut to the tedium of a hand based analysis, but also made a significant contribution in helping to form questions about the data early on. The reports that NU*DIST provided quickly allowed for the identification of animal- related themes through the discussions as well as clarified variants of these themes. More so, statements could be counted and this helped identify which category of statements were made most often according to topics and subtopics. Thus how leaders had emerged, by identifying the category and topics of statements they made most, became more clear for instance. I was also enabled to readily compare statements across groups. This was especially useful in terms of obtaining an understanding into the varied usages participants make of the coastal zone and how this usage is tied to family practices, such as tidepool collecting. Finally, processes such as acculturation could be considered, on the one hand by retrieving and linking direct answers to the question about changes in ‘perception/ knowledge’ since arriving in the U.S. with demographic information from the participants; and on the other hand, by contrasting practices and attitudes between first and second generation immigrants. But once practices, perceptions and attitudes had been identified, counted and recorded, further questions arose about their place in the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129 socio-cultural contexts of the participants. How important were these in shaping and justifying attitudes? In answer I turned to the reports of statements made by each participant and to the immediate textual context of the statements. This allowed me to develop narratives of explanation by individual. In order to understand how these ‘figured in’ in cultural resonance however, I considered group dynamics at a broader level. 4.2.4.3 Identifying cultural models By returning to the transcripts and focusing on the group dynamics that were at play through the discussions, when for instance attitudinal statements were made, I could more reliably appreciate their meaningfulness to participants. This process is similar to the ones that cognitive anthropologists have used to fashion what they call folk models, folk theory, cultural wisdom, explanatory system, and more recently, cultural models. The concept of cultural model encapsulates how individual attitudes are related to people’s way of making sense of the world in general, an important function of culture. As Kempton, Boster, and Hartley (1995) explain in their study of American environmental values: [pjeople organize their cultural beliefs and values with what we call mental models or cultural models ... In the process of learning, people do not just add new information to a loose accumulation of facts in their heads. Rather, like scientists theorizing, they construct [...] models that make sense of most of what they see. Then people can use these models to solve problems or make inferences, based on seemingly incomplete information. (10-11) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130 In order to reconstruct these models I reviewed the arguments used by participants to justify values and attitudes. I also considered the reactions that were provoked by attitudinal statements, such as consensus or challenge, how they resonated within the group, and how the tone of the discussion changed (more often than not resulting in laughter!). By tying these to the coded statements and demographic data, I learned how attitudes (and/or their basis) varied across groups, and how culturally significant they can be. In this manner my analysis integrates how attitudes are bolstered by culture, or how culture is used by participants to argue in favor of a viewpoint. Instances of this occurred when participants discussed one of their culturally significant practices that did not fit in mainstream society. This analytical process is not only critical in adding a layer of explanation to the initial interpretation, one that allowed me to go far beyond a listing of attitudes present in the discussion, but one that is also mindful of participants as active shapers of their own attitudes and views of the world. 4.3 INTERVIEWS AS RESEARCH TOOL The second part of the research, on the role played by MAOOs in shaping attitudes toward marine animals, was investigated through interviews with their managers. Interviews have long played an integral part of social research. Unlike focus groups, they are one-on-one discussions that provide in-depth information from key players for instance. Many of the pragmatic and conceptual considerations that apply to focus Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131 groups also apply to interviews, and thus this section will concentrate mostly on their differences. In this section, I discuss general issues relating to this approach. Then I consider the broad context of this research (AOOs), the recruitment strategy that was necessary, and the development of interview questions. Finally I more specifically explain how interviews were designed, conducted and analyzed in this research. 4.3.1 TRENDS IN INTERVIEWS Interviews are generally conducted in person or by telephone, and involve discussing one or several issues at some length. The interviewer asks questions and, as with the moderator of focus groups, helps guide the direction of the discussion. The technique has been used by a range of professionals, from journalists to medical practitioners. However because only one person’s opinion is garnered each time, interviews can be time consuming. Thus even marketers and pollsters opted for focus groups, and interviews have been less affected by positivist trends in the social sciences toward standardization and measurements. However current trends in how discussions are interpreted significantly influence how interviews are today conducted and, especially, how they are interpreted. Three kinds of interviews exist: structured, semi-structured, and unstructured or unfocused interviews. Of all of them, structured interviews are most similar to written surveys. They are designed for statistical analysis, and thus require that both questions Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132 and answers be highly specific and fall within a set range, to elicit information about a person’s health related habits for instance. They are mainly employed to ensure a higher rate of participation while at the same time generate information. They may best be handled in person, e.g. in the case of some sensitive information. Unstructured or unfocused interviews are called for by some topics, usually involving the description of changes over a long period of time, or by interviewees who require that they be given more time and freedom to elaborate on difficult topics. These interviews vary greatly according to the interest and the motivation of interviewees, and demand that the interviewer refrain from ‘guiding’ the story in any way, be it in the interest of time or sometimes even to ‘make sense’ of it. Semi-structured interviews are flexible enough to let one probe the participants’ responses, in order to ask them to clarify and expand on some statements, while still specifying a good number of questions. While it is important to develop a rapport in order to generate a more interactive dialog, semi-structured interviews permit some degree of formality where interviewers can use more specific language and concepts while the interview agenda. In other words, people can “answer on their own terms” (May, 1997, 111). Thus semi-structured interviews suited my research questions and targeted interviewees best. Thus, interviews are an integral part of social research and have been used to some extent in anthropology, sociology, and geography for instance. Three kinds of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133 interviews can provide different levels of interaction, depending on the information one wishes to obtain and on people’s ready ability and desire to recount opinions or life stories (May, 1997, 115-118). Semi-structured interviews give answers to particular predetermined core questions while at the same time allowing for the exploration of unanticipated areas, for clarifying some of the interviewee’s terms or responses, or even introducing further questions as the interviewer becomes more familiar with a specific sub-topic. Methodological shifts similar to those experienced in focus group research have occurred in how interviews are used and (especially) interpreted. More guidance is being offered in texts on qualitative research on how to conduct and interpret interviews, especially in anthropology and with particular peoples, such as ‘elites.’ However, the interpretation of interviews still rests on a variety of approaches that offer little direction (beyond field orientation) as to when one or another approach is preferable or how far an approach can sustain explanation. 4.3.2 USING INTERVIEWS The lack of consensus on how to design or analyze interviews is confoundingly similar to that surrounding focus groups. Interviews are also generally guided by practical advice and considerations (May, 1997, 113, for instance), but do not require the same level of organization than focus groups do (in terms of finding a suitable site to accommodate everyone). On the other hand recruitment is critical (from selecting the ‘best’ person to speak to, to prompting agreement to be interviewed). These Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134 differences are discussed in this section, especially as they relate to semi-structured interviews. The ideal conditions for interviews should allow for a discussion that is uninterrupted, and where the interviewee gives his or her opinions without being biased by the interviewer or by the surrounding where the discussion takes place. Semi-structured interviews should last long enough to gamer the needed information but not be so long that tiredness and ennui become distractions. The recruitment of an interviewee should be achieved via letter or telephone call, and should be explicit about the maximum time the interview is expected to last, the intended objective of the meeting, and issues of confidentiality or how answers will be used. The interview itself is generally taped and transcribed, and then analyzed. According to mainstream perspectives on interviews, interviews should provide interviewers information that is unbiased by the course of the discussion. This can depend on the demeanor of the interviewer, on his or her familiarity with the questionnaire, and on the interviewer’s propensity and ability to probe for amplifications (Babbie, 1994, 265-7). This is especially critical when several interviewers (other than the researcher) work on the same project. The questions themselves must be specific enough to provide direction to answers, while still being open-ended. However the lack of appropriate and reliable interpretative methodology has been problematic in making the technique as useful as possible. Again, the critical Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135 trend in the social sciences is shaping qualitative research, and for this approach, is changing how interviews are conceived and analyzed. As with focus groups, interviews have benefitted from a better understanding of the social context of these discussions and of interpretations. Discourse analysis and the perspective of interviews as performative events are important ways of making sense of them that today shape research based on interviews. An important aspect of this also extends the interpretation to the ways in which findings are re-presented. I have already addressed much of this in my discussion on focus groups as analytic tools. Thus I instead proceed by describing how I specifically safeguarded my interpretation of the interviews from a misguided or biased reading or reporting. For guidance, I have relied on the general advice imparted in ‘how to’ books, but also and especially on a review by British geographers Baxter and Eyles (1997, 505) of thirty one articles by qualitative social geographers who used in-depth interviews in part at least. Their review assessed how rigor was supported in the articles’ presentation of their analysis. They explained their purpose: [qualitative researchers are encouraged to allow the research situation to guide research procedures in order that they may gain access to human experiences. Yet for the research to be evaluated, there must be clarity of design and transparency in the derivation of findings. (506) They propose a series of ‘flexible’ criteria on which to judge the trustworthiness of any interview-based study, and reported that the most common way to: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 136 ensure rigor are the provision of information on the appropriateness of the methodology, the use of multiple methods, information on respondent selection and the presentation of verbatim quotations, (ibid.) They also listed other means of ensuring rigor that were achieved, although less often (perhaps due to required brevity), and some of these are: details of how interviews were conducted [...]; a description of how data were converted [...]; [length of engagement]; revisits [...]; respondents were contacted to verify interpretations [...]; an existing theory is supported (or refuted) [...]; and rationale for showing that there is agreement between constructs/interpretations and the meanings held by respondents is provided. (507) As I shall show I have taken these criteria into account as much as possible in designing, conducting, interpreting and presenting results of the research interviews and have integrated them in my presentation of results in Chapter Five. I also detail the context from which interviewees were selected, describe my preparations and question rationale. 4.3.3 DESIGNING AND CONDUCTING INTERVIEWS The purpose of the interviews in this research is to understand the role of mediating organizations, namely MAOOs, in shaping attitudes toward marine animals. The flexibility of interviews is ideal to inform such an understanding, of how their managers construct marine related issues and what their perceptions of and response to public needs are. I also wished for some structure since I had specific questions and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137 interviewees had time constraints. Thus semi-structured interviews were deemed to be the best approach. I gave careful consideration to the recruitment strategy given a context little is known about, to drafting open-ended questions and probes, and to the interpretation of each interview. A discussion of each of these issues follows. In a first step I examine the context of AOOs, in order to organize and prepare my recruitment strategy, develop informed questions and to provide a background to my analysis of interviews. Then I characterize more specifically how interviews were conducted within this organizational context. 4.3.3.1 Building an inventory of AOOs Academic research on AOOs has been limited to case studies of individual agencies (for example Davis, 1998; Arluke 1996) or types of agencies. Thus, little is known about the broader landscape of animal oriented organizations (AOOs) and their activities. I began my recruitment strategy by considering what these AOOs’ missions and general landscape was, before focusing on MAOOs. This context was particularly useful in shaping a typology of MAOOs and in shaping interview questions. AOOs in Los Angeles County The broad landscape of AOOs in Los Angeles was clarified through a detailed inventory of these organizations. Inclusion of the inventory was premised on three Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138 criteria: (1) that organizations be based in Los Angeles County; (2) that they be either public or private nonprofit as opposed to for profit (i.e. pet stores, vet clinics); and (3) that they focus on animals or issues related to animals (eg rescue, display, preservation, control) or that they specifically seek to educate, entertain or inform humans about animals. At the time (May-October 1997) 453 organizations were identified. The inventory was then organized according to the functions these AOOs performed. By definition, mission statements are the most specific source of information about an organization’s objectives, and so were used to develop the taxonomy of organizations (appendix E). On this basis, AOOs were divided into four categories: (1) Education; (2) Recreation; (3) Service provision; and (4) Advocacy. Three categories (education, recreation, service provision) were however further divided (see Table 4.1). Of a total inventory of 453 AOOs, 65 (or 14.3%) play a preponderantly educative role. They provide a wide range of information about the natural habitat of animals, their husbandry, or spaying/neutering. This category was divided into three subcategories according to educative strategies involving giving basic information, mounting exhibits, or operating a range of programs. Most educative AOOs (28 or 43.1%), such as the North American Butterfly Association, distributed information. Exhibit or display organizations, such as zoos and nature centers, were second in terms of frequency (23 or 35.4%), followed by Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139 AOOs (14 or 21.5%), such as the National Audubon Society that supports programs of hikes, bird counts, and publications. Regardless of subcategory, nearly all of these AOOs are concerned with wild animals (57 or 87.7%), especially Southern California wildlife. However this is partly due to the typology’s focus on the main activity of AOOs. Indeed, although it is not their primary function, other AOOs such as rescue operations and shelters for instance play an increasingly important educative function in the case of companion animal care. Table 4.1 Number and percentage of AOOs by category and subcategory AOO Type and Subtype Frequency Percent Education 65 9.5 Information 28 14.3 Exhibits 23 6.2 Programs 14 5.1 Recreation 188 41.5 Fancier clubs 133 29.5 Sporting 44 9.7 Other 22 2.4 Service Provision 105 34.6 Shelters 31 23.2 Rehabilitation 21 6.8 Other 21 4.6 Advocacy 43 9.5 TOTAL 453 100 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 140 There are 188 AOOs recreation organizations in Los Angeles, or 41.5% of the total inventory. This category is mostly composed of fancier clubs (133 or 70.7%) and sporting groups (44 or 23.4%), with a low (but growing) number of dog parks and petting farms (11 or 5.9%). Most of these AOOs are concerned with companion animals (173 or 92%). The focus on wildlife in this category is comparatively small (14 or 7.4%) and is concentrated in fishing and hunting organizations. The high number of fancier organizations is mostly composed of dog groups and breed rescue organizations. Aside from explaining their high number, the fact that each of these rescue organization is breed specific clearly indicates that the emphasis is on breed, not rescue per se. This is why such groups appear in this listing, rather than in the service provision category. Sporting organizations rely on horses (to be ridden and trained), dogs (as guides or protectors, to walk in dog parks) or wildlife (for fishing and hunting). Service provision organizations constitute 34.6% (157 organizations) of the inventory. While these AOOs may appear to represent similar interests, their philosophies and strategies can differ considerably. In terms of numbers, shelters are the largest subcategory (105 or 66.9%), followed by rehabilitation (31 or 19.7%) and other organizations (such as Guide Dogs of America) (21 or 13.4%). Service provision AOOs are mostly geared toward companion animals (127 or 80.1%) or toward the ‘combined types’ of animals (45 or 28.7%). Wildlife (73 or 46.5%) is the concern of mostly specialized centers. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 141 There are 43 (or 9.5%) advocacy organizations in Los Angeles County. These organizations exist to promote a particular view of animals and their in/appropriate use by humans. Most are animal welfare and animal rights organizations. These groups promote legislative change, rally around the cause of a disliked or endangered animal, react to a specific incident, or lobby to protect an environment that produces fish or ducks that can then be fished or hunted for instance. Almost 35% (or 15) of AOOs in this category are concerned with the well-being of companion animals, while the next highest preponderance of type of animals is the ‘combined types’ listing at 14 or 33%. Despite various local conditions in Los Angeles that might promote activism (e.g. the region has a large puppy mill market, illegal practices such as cockfighting, and underground market for illegal animal parts used in Asian medicine), AOOs do not take a particularly systematic approach to these problems. With some exceptions, they instead respond to a fairly conservative range of animal related issues in their advocacy efforts. In summary most of AOOs in the region are either recreation or service provision organizations. This underlines the residents’ interest in animals, expressed through various types of human-animal interactions, as well as their disinterest in animals (evidenced by the shelters). This is followed by public education and advocacy organizations. Over half of all AOOs focus their efforts strictly on companion animals. Over a fourth are oriented toward wild animals, while nearly a fifth (mostly public sector institutions) manage a combination of animal types. Finally, only about one Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142 percent of AOOs deal with farm animals, reflecting the post war disappearance of livestock uses from Los Angeles County, but also the lack of concern about slaughterhouses and animal auction houses that remain. Public/nonprofit contrasts The majority of AOOs are operated under private nonprofit auspices. Indeed 381 or 84.1% of Los Angeles County’s AOOs are private nonprofit organizations, while 163 or 13.9% of them are public sector agencies and the rest is jointly run by a private/public partnership. This division is to be expected, although there has been an effort on the part of public entities such as the Los Angeles County Department of Recreation and Parks to broaden services and become more responsive to remedy various issues. For instance, as more people used public parks to walk their dogs, concerns over this usage arose from both other visitors and wildlife managers. As a result, the Department of Recreation and Parks thus began to open more off-leash dog parks. Even more telling is the name change from agencies commonly known as ‘Animal Control’ to ‘Animal Services,’ as this signals a more humane emphasis at this maligned institution. Meanwhile some nonprofit AOOs that have no regulatory powers (typically Humane Associations such as the ASPCA) have nonetheless played a key role in working with public agencies, evaluating public shelters, and serving as ‘watchdog’ for both public and private nonprofit facilities (appendix F). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143 Unless they are affiliated with a national or international organization, most nonprofit organizations rely on funding that is generated locally, through grants and various endowments, membership fees, service charges, entry fees or moneys earned through the operation of a gift shop. While private, nonprofit AOOs are formally autonomous from the state, many are organized as tax-exempt entities, and thus in addition abide by both state and federal requirements affecting such nonprofits. They must also comply with federal, city and county codes. Affiliates and chapters Affiliation is an important characteristic of AOOs to consider because it can show how smaller private AOOs overcome various impediments by forming partnerships. This can indicate new shifts in both strategy and in attitudes about animals. Affiliation can take various forms, and may link a local effort to another area within a city, county, region, state, the nation or parts of the world (or vice versa). Education AOOs, are either affiliated with a City or County agency (such as public schools), or with a regional or national organization such as the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. Some recreation AOOs are linked with state or city agencies or with larger sporting organizations, such as national fishing clubs. Fancier clubs are typically affiliated with the American Kennel Club (AKC), on which they depend for licencing and authority. Service provider AOOs have affiliation with city, county agencies, or nationwide humane societies such as the ASPCA. Most advocacy AOOs are affiliated Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 144 with organizations in Sacramento or Washington, DC, or are politically active on the local level. Affiliation with an umbrella organization can give AOOs the strategy, means and authority they need to pursue their goals. Targeted human population The groups of people that were targeted by AOO (either to solicit members, education, serve, etc.) was garnered from mission statements, and/or was obvious in the organization’s name, literature, or website. Generally, education AOOs tended to target demographic subgroups such as children, senior citizens, or butterfly enthusiasts for instance. Recreation AOOs targeted interest-based subgroups including rodeo or pigeon racing enthusiasts and purebreed fanciers, people with special needs or disabled people, dog owners (looking for places to walk their dog), and families with children. Service provision AOOs targeted a broader spectrum, but especially pet owners and potential pet owners. Missing from these targeted populations are ethnic and cultural groups which desire or need specialized services (such as San Francisco’s Buddhists for Animals). Advocacy AOOs appealed to ‘all concerned persons’ and people more likely to support their agenda. The characterization of the AOO landscape in Los Angeles proved most useful in beginning to unravel some important differences between these organizations, but also the ways in which they are similar whether by choice (as a strategy to strengthen Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 145 efforts) or not (because of different philosophies regarding animals, or in order to comply to rules and regulations). In some respects, this characterization also pointed to the fact that some organizations are specific and dynamic, and thus conform with difficulty to generalizations (and relatedly to rules and regulations). With this inventory and a better appreciation for the similarities and differences between organizations, I was better equipped and more confident to focus on a ‘complete’ list of MAOOs, interview the managers that, thanks to their experience, job requirements, and interaction with the public and/or marine animals, could best help inform this research. This understanding of AOOs also helped me to fashion my questions in a more relevant manner. In chapter Six I describe in more detail the MAOOs that exist in the region and the criterias that were used to select interviewees. 4.3.3.2 Interviewing MAOO managers My interviews with MAOO managers were foregrounded on the understanding of AOOs across the region, which I just described, and on other specific preparation. This preparation involved the visit of MAOO sites that were open to the public, in order to familiarize myself as thoroughly as possible with their modus operandum and to collect all their literature and articles in the press about them. This helped me identify the most active and visible MAOOs, and the personnel most actively involved in defining the MAOO’s approach to the representation of marine animals. Selected experts included both wildlife managers and a broad mix of leaders in marine animal Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 146 rescue organizations. I conducted interviews in person whenever possible, but also had to accommodate the participants’ time constraints and interviewed some of them on the telephone. At the time of the initial telephone call to potential interviewees I made clear the research objectives and my source of funding. In most cases I had obtained a personal reference from another interviewee and this was also mentioned. I assured him or her that questions could be answered in half an hour and explained that a report of these interviews would be publicly available, through my dissertation and as a report that they could later obtain via the University of Southern California Sea Grant Program. This introduction was reiterated on the day of the interview. I also brought the interviewee a copy of a previous report (on cultural diversity and attitudes toward marine animals). Once permission was granted to use a tape recorder, the interview started. I took brief notes in the event of equipment failure and to mark incomplete answers or statements that I wished amplified. None of those interviewed asked for confidentiality, with the brief exception of one person who reported to have rescued an endangered species of animal without proper authorization. More than half of those who were interviewed have been quoted in newspaper reports on similar topics and all routinely speak about these issues in public. A standardized interview guide was produced, comprising a first contact protocol that described the above procedure and statement of introduction, and fourteen open ended Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147 questions on four topics. Probes were also prepared to allow for further elaboration on the answers given (for questions and probes see appendix H). Interview questions and probes were developed to give interviewees the best opportunity to develop their answers as fully as they might wish to, and explain why and how particular decisions were taken. All interviewees were asked the same questions, in order to guide a comparative range of answers as the literature on interviews recommends (see May 1997). However, and as Lofland and Lofland (1995, 120) suggest, topic order was slightly changed depending on the primary emphasis of the particular MAOO (and in this way, allowed me to ask ‘easy’ questions first). Probing also varied, as did some wording depending on the MAOOs’ emphasis on either exhibit or programing. This is standard practice in semi-structured interview practice. When respondants said something complex or outrageous (as they often did), I asked for clarification and repeated it to make sure I understood them correctly, and to again convey my interest in their conceptualizations and positions. After the interview I supplemented my notes by highlighting issues that the interviewee thought were key and my general impressions of the interview. This allowed me to keep track of key changes in my report of the interview. Because the interviews followed closely the patterns of my questions, I did not use the NUD*IST analytical package. In the questions, I asked interviewees to address the cultural landscape in which they exist, by exploring issues of cultural diversity, and identifying behaviors which may create conflicts, such as collecting tidepool creatures because of a cultural reliance on Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148 tidepools for food. This involved questions about the kinds of behaviors that managers linked to particular population subgroups and the basis for these linkages. I aimed to specifically have them clarify these factors in terms of cultural and geographic origins. I also focused my questions on how the public's attitudes were perceived in contrast to those represented by the MAOO, and— in the event of strong attitudinal differences— their response to the public’s expectations, questions and disappointments. The first questions inquired into the demographics of the MAOO’s staff, volunteers, members and public. The second question asked about outreach efforts, and how strategies of outreach differed (if at all) across groups. The third question broached the topic of harmful practices they might have noted. And the last question was devoted to culture and how the MAOO might link specific practices to culture and subsequently take a public position about it. Nearly all interviews lasted over an hour, after which I was often introduced to other staff members who could give me more information (on membership for instance). I then thanked all involved, and again later wrote them a letter of thanks. Finally, interview interpretations were augmented by the supplementary data collected and literature provided by respondents, which allowed me to draw organizational sketches (see Chapter Six). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 149 4.4 CONCLUSIONS There are several reasons behind the rising interest in focus groups and interviews as social science methodologies, but for this research the most important is that these approaches can provide a more analytical explanation for attitudes than surveys. This analytical understanding can include complex processes, such as the influence of culture on attitudes toward marine animals. In order to do so however, traditional guidelines on how to conduct and interpret focus groups and interviews have had to undergo a transformation. They have been used with greater flexibility, particularly in the case of focus groups. Some important challenges remain: as Jarrett (1993) remarked, the “entry into cultural and ethnic diversity is a methodological challenge of increasing magnitude that must be given more attention” (200-201). In this research, special care was taken to carefully consider both strengths and limitations of these methodologies, in the recruitment of participants, the operationalization of the techniques, and in the interpretation of these focus group discussions and interviews. In a first part, focus groups were utilized because the openness and dialogical characteristics of these discussions can best clarify a broad and rich range of attitudes, in terms (for example) of promoting the recall of class- and culture- based practices and of attitudes that participants take for granted. The approach used in this research is largely derived from mainstream focus group research, with some important and innovative modifications. More contemporary and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 150 critical approaches were incorporated by the research team by retaining (and even highlighting) important socio-demographic characteristics while downplaying others, in both group segmentation and moderator role. Thus, five groups of women from low income inner-city communities of color in Los Angeles were organized. These focus group discussions brought a rich and substantial array of attitudinal differences to light, and this was especially enriched by group interactions, as participants challenged or lent credence to each other’s viewpoints. As Goss (1996b, 118) explained, focus groups provide “insight into the manner in which knowledge is produced, or reified into social truth, and in which social decisions are made in the local context.” In the second phase of the research, interviews were conducted with MAOO managers in order to understand the role that these organization play in shaping public attitudes. The selection of methodology was based on the fact that these experts would be more amenable to one-on-one exchanges where detailed information could be obtained about each organization. These managers were selected on the basis of factors, such as the MAOOs’ primary functions and visibility, and their own position within the MAOO. This information was provided though an inventory and characterization of AOOs in the region, which also helped me construct better questions. Thus in the interviews, managers were asked about the demographic composition of their public, staff, volunteers and members; about their outreach efforts; harmful practices on the part of the public that they knew about; and how they linked (or not) practices to specific cultures. Semi-structured interviews provided the flexibility necessary for Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151 answering these questions according to their knowledge, estimations and positions. My interpretation was based on the tenor of the interviews, how interviewees explained their beliefs and practices, and how controversial viewpoints were justified similarly or differently across the group discussions. Both focus groups and interviews helped me clarify attitudes toward marine animals. Beyond basic information on their attitudes, participants provided narratives and anecdotes about the cultural and social meanings of marine and other animals, and the human activities related to them. Through these techniques a rich sampling of attitudes and practices of a wide diversity of peoples were obtained, along with a range of explanations for these attitudes, their basis and driving force. This eventually allowed me to better understand attitudes as processes, and culture as an important component of attitude orientation and formation. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER FIVE- THE MEANINGS OF MARINE ANIMALS: RESULTS FROM FOCUS GROUPS Whether a product of necessity, force, or part of a process of self- realization, of gaining knowledge of the broader world, of becoming a man or woman, migration is often the context in which ethnicity is expressed. And, central to migrant definitions of ethnicity are the imagined landscapes of the past, the forces that have changed them and impelled migration, and the concrete landscapes in which cultural adjustments are constantly made. (Lynch, 1993, 113-4) 5.1 INTRODUCTION The interface between humans and marine animals in the Los Angeles region has had a long and varied history. This is in part due to the diverse natural marine environment found here, to the fact that Los Angeles is located where cold and warm ocean waters meet, and thus that even slight fluctuations in water temperatures (due to natural oceanic cycles) can dramatically alter where this boundary is located from year to year (McHale, 1997, 317). The most dramatic example of this is El Nino,1 a cyclical warm current that can drastically alter kelp production and redirect fish migration routes, and thus result in the mass starvation of the animals that feed on kelp and fish (Lundy, 1997, 206). 1 Some argue that this current is itself triggered by global warming which is often blamed on humans. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153 Beyond natural conditions, anthropogenic factors have also deeply affected not only marine animals and their habitat but our relation to them. Native Americans had long fished along the coast, but commercial fishing enterprises were formed by the Chinese starting in the 1860s. By the turn of the century they were replaced by Italians, Portuguese, Japanese and Yugoslavs (State of California, 1997, 38-39); a succession that was more often than not the result of racism (Lundy, 1997, 44 and 46), such as the internment of Japanese Americans during World War n. These fishers brought with them fishing implements and technologies, like Italian fishing nets and Japanese wetsuits, and adapted them to local conditions (Ries, 1997, 20). These knowledges initiated substantial increases in catches, and by the 1920s had already triggered the overfishing of the region (ibid., 115). Soon overfishing was remediated by switching to other more abundant catches (for a few years), rather than by oversight or intervention, and this trend continued well into the 1960s. As Ries (ibid.) writes: “[i]n spite of some hand-wringing by a few Fish & Game biologists and protests from sportfishing interests, little was done to curb the massacre” (115). During the 1970- 80s, gillnets were modified to decrease the accidental takings of whales, seals, sea birds and dolphins (McHale, 1997, 1480), and in 1990 a complete ban on gillnets was effected through the passage of Proposition 132. The results of this law are still in contention and McHale (1997), a fisheries consultant, recently asked: What did Proposition 132 really accomplish? Beyond eliminating our own heavily regulated nearshore gillnet fleet, California consumer dependence on seafood imports grew, and the likelihood of eating fish harvested [elsewhere] without the benefit of size limits, gear restrictions and other controls subsequently increased. (1482) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 154 As I discussed in Chapter One, other laws, such as the Marine Mammals Protection Act (reenacted in 1994) have been even more controversial. Another point of contention has been between the public’s right of access and the development of the Coast. Intense development began at the turn of the Twentieth Century, with on the one hand the oil and gas industry which began when Los Angeles became a center for their production and distribution. Harbors and marinas such as Marina Del Rey, the largest artificial small pleasure boat harbor in the world, were dredged, and several military bases were established during World War II. On the other hand, resort towns such as Santa Monica and Venice were built early on, and were quickly followed by many others. The preservation of coastal lands and the securing of public access began in Santa Catalina in 1913 and along the mainland coast in the late 1920s (State of California, 1997, 39), but were not significantly secured until the passing of the California Coastal Act of 1976. Both the effects of development and access have been differentially experienced by people, often on the basis of race and racism and socio-economic status. For instance, the remaining population that fishes for food in the region, or that eats particular local fish like the kingfish, has been put at greater risk due to the presence of a DDT superfund site off the Palos Verde Shelf where these fish live. The fact that mostly poor Latino and Asian populations eat this poison affected fish is due to both culture and economic status, but has been made worse by the lack of public attention that this Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155 issue received until recently. If the mainstream population had eaten locally caught fish, chances are this situation would have been more swiftly and effectively addressed. In this Chapter, I present the analysis of the five focus group discussions conducted with low income, inner city women of four ethnic groups, about their knowledge, behaviors and attitudes about marine wildlife. The research objective of these discussions were to (a) generate an overview of practices, perceptions and attitudes toward marine animals, and to (b) link this overview of attitudes and practices to dimensions of cultural diversity (such as ethnicity, residency, education, experience with animals and broad value positions with respect to nature). First I sketch a portrait of each group and characterize the discussions as they relate to animals at large. With this background I then focus on the groups’ experiences with and knowledge about marine wildlife specifically. I contrast the participants’ attitudes toward marine wildlife and develop cultural models of these attitudes. This analysis is based on the justifications given by participants for these attitudes, their resonance within the group, and the connection of attitudes to particular socio-cultural contextual variables. 5.2 THE PARTICIPANTS AND ANIMALS IN GENERAL Five groups of eight to eleven women, of African American, Chicana, Latina, Chinese or Filipina heritage, were convened over a period of four months from July to October Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 156 1998. In two cases, participants were monolingual Spanish (Latinas) or Cantonese (Chinese) speakers. Prior to the discussions, participants were asked to complete a brief written questionnaire (appendix B). This questionnaire allowed me to characterize the groups’ demographic make up which I describe in the first part of this section. The second part presents findings about the participants’ experience, knowledge and attitudes as related to animals in general, and how this may relate to attitudes toward marine wildlife specifically. This attitudinal context was brought out both by the focus group questions (appendix C) and in turn by topics that were raised by participants in the course of the discussions. As described in Chapter Four, discussions were taped, transcribed and analyzed using NU*DIST (Non-numerical Unstructured Data Indexing Searching and Theorizing). Socio-demographic characteristics o f the focus groups Altogether forty-eight women took part in the focus groups. In several ways the women shared demographic characteristics with other downtown residents, however the concern with these variables was not to ensure representation per se but for the discussions to provide a more valuable context for attitudes expressed, in terms of their salience to a diversity of participants. Women of all ages participated in the discussions (ranging from 18 to 78 with a median age of 36) (see Table 5.1). They Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 157 were on average slightly less educated than downtown Los Angeles residents at large,2 with almost a third of participants having no high school degree with exception to the Filipina group, all of whom had at least been to college. Over half were bom in other countries,3 but three-fourths of the participants had lived in Los Angeles for over eight years. Within each group, participants differed from one another in several respects, especially in terms of age, education, and in some groups, whether they were native to the U.S. or to Los Angeles. In order to further clarify differences due to age and acculturation, we organized both a Latina and a Chicana focus group (e.g., first generation vs. second generation immigrants). In terms of experiences with animals, over ninety percent of all participants had cared for at least one pet, most several or many. At least a third had worked with animals, on farms for the most part. None of the women except one belonged to an environmental/animal welfare or animal rights organization. Thus while the groups were similar in some respects, they differed in their work with animals and their kinds and numbers of pets. Altogether this diversity provided rich insights into the women’s experiences and behaviors, perceptions and knowledge, and their values and attitudes towards animals, especially marine wildlife. A demographic characterization of each group follows. According to the 1990 US Census, 26% of downtown residents have no high school degree, 11% have a high school degree only, 9% have some college, and 15% have a college degree. ‘Downtown’ includes the areas of Central Los Angeles, Hollywood, Chinatown, Little Tokyo, Echo Park and Los Feliz. 3 According to the 1990 US Census, 49% of downtown residents are foreign bom. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 158 Table 5.1 Individual socio-demographic characteristics of focus group participants Afr. Am. n=11 (%) Chicana (%) n=8 Latina n=10 (%) Chinese n=10 (%) Filipina (%) Total n=9 n=48 (%) 1. Age Range Median 22-75 28 18-35 19 23-62 37 36-78 53 22-59 37 18- 78 36 2. Education No high school 3 27.3 0 0 7 70 5 50 0 0 15 31 degree High school 4 36 1 12.5 2 20 1 10 0 0 8 16.7 degree Som e college 2 18.2 5 63 1 10 2 20 3 33.3 13 27 College degree 2 18.2 2 25 0 0 2 20 6 67 12 12.5 3. Birthplace Los Angeles 4 36.4 5 63 0 0 0 0 2 22.2 11 22.9 R est of 1 9.1 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 2 4.2 California Other S tates 5 46 1 12.5 0 0 0 0 1 11.1 7 14.6 Other countries 1 9.1 2 25 9 90 10 100 6 66.6 28 58 4. LA Residency <2 years 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 1 2.1 2 to 8 years 2 18.2 1 12.5 1 10 5 50 2 22.2 11 22.9 >8 years 9 81.9 7 87.5 9 90 5 50 6 66.6 36 75 5. Member Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 1 2.1 No 11 100 8 100 10 100 10 100 8 88.8 47 98 6. Work with Animals Farm 5 45.5 4 50 6 60 1 10 0 0 16 33.3 Vet-pet store-lab 0 0 1 13 1 10 0 0 1 11.1 3 6.25 7. Pets Yes 10 90.1 8 100 10 100 8 80 8 88.8 44 92 No 1 9.9 0 0 0 0 2 20 1 11.1 4 0.8 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159 The African American focus group was composed of eleven participants, all of whom lived in a low income housing center. The group’s median age was 28 with one person being 75 years old. Over a fourth of them had not completed high school and a third of them only had a high school degree. One person had a master’s degree, she quickly became one of the leading discussant. Most participants were bom in a state other than California, but over a third were bom in Los Angeles (where three have lived all their lives). In fact, the greatest majority of these women had lived in Los Angeles for over eight years. One person was bom in Belize and had only lived in Los Angeles for a couple of years, she emerged as another discussion leader. Almost half had worked with animals (on a farm) and all except one had kept pets (mostly dogs and cats but also birds, a pony and small mammals such as rabbits). The demographic diversity of discussants was reflected in their lively engagement in the discussion and in the wide range of attitudes they expressed. The Chicana focus group was the youngest and most uniform group in many respects. The median age of these eight women was 19 years old with one person being quite a bit older than the rest of the group. They had been regular members of a low income community center where they take classes and/or instruct younger children. Most were bom in Los Angeles and had lived their entire lives there. All had completed high school. Despite their young age, most were in college or had a college degree. Half had worked with animals, mostly on a family farm. All had had pets, especially dogs, and a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 160 great variety of other animals including cats, bird, reptiles, insects, fish, small mammals and farm animals. The older (and a foreign-bom) participant quickly took the lead among participants, a natural function for her since she was also the well-liked leader of this community center. The Latina focus group (ten members) met at the same community center as did the Chicana group. This discussion was led in Spanish since many did not speak English with ease. While none of the Latinas were bom in Los Angeles, most had lived in Los Angeles over eight years. Their ages ranged from 23 to 62 (two participants did not give us their age but fall within this category), with an approximate median age of 37 years old. Among all five groups, this group was on average the least formally educated: most did not have a high school degree and only one participant had attended college. Over half of the women had experience working on a farm however. All had had pets, especially dogs, but also many cats and birds. Some of the women were related to the younger Chicana members. Most were bom in Mexico but lived in close proximity to the community center now. The Chinese focus group consisted of ten Cantonese speaking women. This group was recruited at (or near) a popular community health center in Chinatown and was on average the oldest group, with a median age of 53 and an age range from 36 to 78 years. All were bom in Mainland China, except for one woman who was bom in Vietnam. Half of these women had no high school degree, two had college degrees. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 161 And while half of the women had lived in Los Angeles for over eight years, this group had the greatest percentage of new US arrivals (some had moved to Hong Kong prior to coming here). Most of the participants lived in Chinatown except for one who resided in Monterey Park (another largely Chinese community) but used Chinatown facilities on a daily and extensive basis. Only one had worked with animals (on a farm). Eight out of ten however had kept pets (the least among all our groups). The most common pet was fish, but the women also had dogs, cats, reptiles and other animals such as ducks which they had raised for food and silkworms for silk. The discussion was held in Cantonese, with a simultaneous translator also serving as moderator. Also recruited at a community center, nine women participated in the Filipina focus group. Their median age was 37, with ages ranging from 22 to 59 years old. This was the most formally educated group: six had a college degree, and all others had attended some college classes. Most were bom in the Philippines, but were relatively long time Los Angeles residents, with only one having lived in Los Angeles less than a year. Only one had worked with animals— in a lab. All except one had had at least one pet, with the most common pets being dogs, then fish. Several reported having had pigs and other animals that they raised for food. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. General knowledge and perceptions o f animals 162 In order to better understand what participants know and how they think of marine animals, we first considered their knowledge and attitudes toward animals in general. The participants’ knowledge of animals was revealed mostly through spontaneous discussions rather than specific questions. Discussions provided clues about the extent of the women’s knowledge and, frequently, its socio-cultural context. The women often relied on first hand experience (such as childhood experiences and early lessons on how to treat animals), as well as second hand information from parents, family or friends, and interestingly, even urban folk tales, to form ideas and opinions. Also (but to a lesser extent), participants reported enjoying and learning about animals through nature books, television programs and films, and zoos, aquaria and animal related theme parks. Formal education figured little in their accounts of knowledge or perceptions about animals. In general, the inquiries into everyday practices provided the richest discussions about knowledge, especially when the women spoke of animals as pets or animals as foods. They supplied an excellent sampling of what they know about animals, including which animals make ‘good’ pets and why (based on behavior for example), and which animals can be consumed (and how!), as well as the socio cultural context in which animal practices of other people take place. These discussions were based on personal or family experience and, in many instances, also framed the women’s understanding of animal pain and its similarity to human suffering (on the basis of witnessing animal slaughter or cruel acts for women in the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 163 African American, Chicana and Latina groups for instance). Many of the women also had ‘common knowledge’ of the medicinal uses of animals and animal parts, especially those based on traditional knowledge (the perception that eating freshly killed animals gives you more energy for instance, in the Latina and Chinese group) rather than science-based knowledge (for example, nutrition value of particular animals was not mentioned). The women showed that they also generally knew about the various so-called recreational practices of other peoples involving animals, such as rodeos and magic rituals. One of the questions inquired specifically about what animals the women had seen at local beaches, and answers varied widely between groups (this will be described later). But interestingly, participants also volunteered other places where they had seen wild animals, in their native countries (the Latina, Chinese and Filipina groups) and even in specific urban environments (some in Los Angeles, for the African American and Chicana groups). This suggests a familiarity of wildlife (including urban wildlife) habitat and distributions. In addition, rudimentary knowledge of animal behavior emerged, along with a basic understanding of ecosystem relations. This was especially clarified by the questions about wild animals coming into the city and about animals suffering due to a natural phenomenon such as El Nino. Responses indicated that general ideas about natural system linkages were based on popular conceptions of ecosystems and species diversity (in the African American and Filipina groups). This type of knowledge was supplemented by concerns over danger posed by some of these Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 164 wild animals or by wilderness environments in general (in the African American and Filipina groups especially). Few participants seemed familiar with practices related to wildlife management science, although some were informed about the most controversial issues, such as the release of wolves in the Rockies (the African American group). This type of knowledge was gained from the TV/radio news, and in zoos and aquaria. Competing knowledge claims were strategically used by participants to convince others of particular attitudes (especially in the African American, Latina and Filipina groups), such as that people should learn to coexist with animals rather than exterminate them. In general, knowledge about animals was uneven for individuals, within and between groups, and the discussions brought out examples of misinformation and/or of ignorance of basic information— especially in terms of wildlife management. General attitudes toward animals The focus group discussions generally provided many insights into the animal related practices and perceptions of these women, their families, and their culture, as well as their views of practices in other cultures. The groups however differed widely in the number and nature of attitudinal statements made by participants.4 Also within groups, 4 Attitudes were also categorized according to attitudes perceived to be held by the discussants’ families, within their cultural background, and that of other cultures, and inquired into their perceptions of gender differences in attitudes. However, more so than with individual attitudes, statements of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165 some women were more forthcoming. Thus the Filipina group, which was also the most educated group on average, provided the most attitudinal statements (but the Chicana group, which was also generally more educated, provided far fewer!). Attitudes toward animals were expressed throughout discussions of many topics, most linked to normative questions of how humans should or should not use animals but also in descriptions of animal practices that were justified on the basis of particular normative values and attitudes. In quantitative terms, most statements of individual attitudes fell in the anthropocentric category.5 The ‘animal welfare’ attitude was especially well represented with over eighty such statements, twice as many as the second category. These statements were particularly well represented in the Latina group, and also in the Chinese and Filipina groups. Although these groups were composed of some of the most recent immigrants, this result falls in line with other research that had shown that animal welfare attitudes are more common among women than men (Driscoll, 1992; Herzog, Betchart and Pittman, 1991; Pifer, Shimizu and Pifer, 1994). The next most common attitude expressed across groups was also anthropocentric: utilitarian-dominionistic (especially the Latina and the Filipina groups), followed closely by about the same number of negativistic attitudes attitudes about others varied highly between groups and are too unevenly distributed to provide a sustained characterization of each group. 5 This typology of attitudinal statements is intended only to broadly characterize the discussions. In no way can it precisely quantify numbers of statements, for instance, participants often gave nods and ‘yesses’ of approval to statements made by others which may signify approval or mere politeness. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 166 (especially the African American and Filipina groups). Biocentric attitudes, namely statements in support of ‘animal rights’ (the African American and Filipina groups), were fourth most frequent. In contrast to findings by Kellert and Berry (1980), one attitude that seemed absent in the discussions was the aesthetic attitude. This attitude seems to emerge most when people are asked about particular species of animals (see Whitley 1998). And when asked to list the animals they had seen at the beach, the charismatic species (whales, dolphins, pelicans, sea gulls and seals) were foremost mentioned across four of the groups— indicating the enduring importance of aesthetics in human appreciation of animals. However, in their study of the attitudes of hunters, Czech, Krausman and Borkhataria (1998) provide an excellent discussion of reasons that might be behind the ‘disappearance’ of aesthetic attitude toward animals, namely (among other) that “... people may consider it politically incorrect to admit a preference based on appearance or monetary value because it is politically incorrect to discriminate among humans on the basis of race or class” (1109). In the discussions, environmentalists attitudes were few and far between and were unevenly developed. This is probably because the questions probed into the women’s everyday practices (as well as family, cultural and cross-cultural practices) more than in explanations of natural processes, and thus the scientific basis for attitudes was not pronounced. Unlike Whitley (1998,232) who found in her ethnically diverse sample, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 167 tolerance for the practices and beliefs of people in other cultural groups was marked (although unevenly across groups), and demonstrated a cultural relativistic attitude on the basis of socio-cultural empowerment even when this contradicted individual convictions, a point to which I will return in my final discussion. A final note should be made about comments made in the Chicana and Filipina groups about animal rights organizations in the U.S. In the Chicana group, one participant explained that a friend had introduced her to animal rights and that it had played a role in sensitizing her to animal suffering. She felt this introduction had profoundly altered her ideas especially because she came from a culture where such a view is non existent. The comments made in the Filipina group were of a different nature. First, a participant who expressed concerns about animals categorically stated her non allegiance to an animal rights standpoint on several occasions. Second, several explained that cultural practices were normalized in the Philippines by the very fact that (to their knowledge) no animal rights organizations existed there. This point was highlighted by one participant, who explained that with a dictator (Marcos) in power they had had more to worry about ‘than dogs.’ 5.3 THE PARTICIPANTS AND MARINE ANIMALS Like most Los Angeles residents, the majority of participants took part or had in the past taken part in activities related to the marine environment. Southern California Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 168 beaches are an attractive (and inexpensive) source of recreation. The Coast also includes several public aquaria, including one that is free and one that recently opened, along with tide pools where fish and crustaceans can easily be observed (and collected). For many of the women going to the beach was an important activity or had been when they were children, and many recollect experiences fishing with their families. Indeed, many come from a strong traditional background in fishing and tide pool collecting. Some ate fish as an important component of religious observance. The women’s activities in the marine environment (both locally and elsewhere in the past) were diverse, and these interactions appeared to have shaped what they knew and valued about it. Going to the beach One way people learn about the marine environment is by going to the beach. This is especially true in Southern California where dolphins, pelicans and other charismatic species can readily be viewed all year long. According to a 1991 survey by the California Department of Parks and Recreation, almost 10% of residents go to the beach an average of 21 days a year (The Resources Agency of California, 1997, 5G-2). Two questions inquired in the nature of beach activities, in terms of personal meaning and of animals they had encountered there. These were: “When you’ve gone to the beach, what kind of animals and birds have you noticed?” and “How about other animal-related outings, like going birdwatching, or whale watching, did you do that?” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 169 Women in each group reported on the meaningfulness of both going to the beach, however there were marked differences in their experiences. ; . j S '.I |< t H i i ’ a H A I . L * A T ' f H A K R 'i H - H I f Hi ( A T H r - M - - . : ' HELi< D i ’ r h K H 4 9 5 - 5 8 8 4 W halzwatcH 5.1 Advertising ‘guaranteed’ whale watching tours The two groups that reported going to the beach most often were the African American and the Filipina women. The African American women mentioned nearly all the Los Angeles beaches, including those of Catalina Island and the Salton Sea, an inland sea. Also they listed many animals (whales, dolphins, starfish, seagulls, crabs) they had seen (see photograph 5.1). Some of the reasons they gave forgoing to the beach were to fish (more on this later), and for amenities such as cooler temperatures compared to the inner city. However, these women expressed mixed feelings about their visits. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 170 Georgia: Bernadette: Norma: Georgia: Laura: Frankie: Norma: Laura: Norma: Irene: Laura: Irene: Susan: Laura: It’s really pretty out there. I’ve never liked the beach (...) It’s so nasty. (...) I don’t care for the sand, and the seaweed. I can’t stand them (sic) seaweeds (sic), honey! My mom used to scare me with them (sic) things. I’d be gone! When I’d see them (sic) I’d scream! (...) Cabrillo Beach isn’t a good place to be hanging out in the water because there’s seaweed, and this lady’s son actually got caught up in the ... wrapped in the weeds and they drowned him ...6 (...) I’ve seen whales, in Catalina, when I was just a little girl, on a field trip with school. There’s so pretty! Yeah, they are. And then they scrape up under the boat! I’d have a heart attack! (...) I don’t like them (sic) seagulls! They’re bold, honey... Yeah! I don’t like them (sic) things, honey. I wish I had a gun to shoot them suckers! The Filipinas reported going to the beaches that are currently popular (Laguna Beach, Manhattan Beach, Santa Monica), and gave fairly exhaustive lists of animals they had encountered (seagulls, pelicans, pigeons, dolphins, sea lions, crabs, crayfish, sea slugs, sand sharks, octopus, jellyfish, stingrays, clams). The African American women generally had had a longer history of local beach visitation than the Filipina women but the Filipinas’ interest in the diversity of animals encountered was less utilitarian. In focus groups of Americans about fishing, African Americans also expressed concerns about drowning (Responsive Management, 1998, 657). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 171 An interesting contrast between the Chicanas and the Latinas also emerged. At first, few of the Chicanas reported going to the beach, with exception for Huntington Beach, popular with college age and mostly white visitors. However they named a relatively diverse list of sea animals: a whale, pelicans, dolphins, sea lions, sea urchins, jellyfish, and sea gulls. This indicates perhaps that they learn about marine wildlife in school and in school field trips. This is in high contrast to the Latinas’ experience. Indeed, the Latinas also only mentioned one beach, a beach that is most popular among Latino families (Cabrillo Beach). But the animals they listed are typically caught to be eaten or are seen in the context of the open sea (a more frightening context than the beach and indeed one person said she was afraid of the sea). These animals, also seen in the women’s native countries, included whales, shark, seals, dolphins, mantas, birds, sea turtles, abalones, crayfish, clams, sea stars, sunfish and shrimps. The experiences of the Chicanas and Latinas thus offer a sharp contrast in terms of activities and experiences, presumably on the basis of age and socio-cultural differences between the places in which they were raised. In contrast to all groups, the Chinese women did not mention going to the beach per se, but instead discussed collecting tidepool animals (for food) at length, especially where to find them (in their countries of origin and at the local Chinese markets) and which kinds of animals were best to eat. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Visiting aquaria and other animal display organizations 172 Appreciation for and knowledge about marine animals can be directly enhanced by close up viewing in at least four aquaria and ‘sea parks’ in the region, the Los Angeles Zoo, and several marine rescue centers. Several of the Chinese women reported visiting aquaria and ‘sea parks’ not only in the US, but also in several countries and enjoying television programs related to the sea specifically. In all groups someone mentioned going to aquaria and zoos (see photograph 5.2 and 5.3), and this was a significant component of enjoying and learning about marine wildlife for the Latina group especially. Indeed they saw such visits as a vital part of their duty to educate their children about animals. One woman explained her understanding of the role of aquaria as such: I imagine that one has to teach children the value of animals. To teach them what kind of species are to eat, and teach them at an early age how to fish and not take things out of the sea that really will not be used. I imagine that’s why these places (aquaria) exist, to educate our children little by little. Since our parents could not educate us. We have the opportunity to raise our children with a little more education. This statement is significant in that it shows how the authority of such an animal display institutions can be real, but also how messages may be misinterpreted: this participant believes that aquaria teach people which fish can be eaten. The Latinas also were unique in that they alone discussed several scary— or erroneous— stories about sea animals: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 173 Dolores: When I was a little girl, my father told me that the mantas were enormous and that if it [sic] landed on top of a man it would suck his blood and would leave only the skeleton. Elena: I have never seen an octopus ... I really thought they were very mad animals who ate people, and that the tentacles were enormous ... In this last instance, seeing an octopus (presumably a small one) in an aquarium reassured the participant (“ ... it made me laugh when I saw how big they really are. They are not really that big”) but this was again a misinterpretation, since octopus can reach large sizes (but not in aquariums). Altogether the Latinas’ interest in marine life was tied to their own fears of the open sea (fostered by folktales) as well as to the proper way to raise their children. A visit to the aquarium could allay their fears and provide a useful setting in which children could be taught lessons about the proper treatment of animals (which fish to eat, and not to catch more fish than could be consumed). These lessons are perceived as valuable for several reasons: (1) it is good for children to learn about animals, (2) since children lack in exposure to animals, this experience has to be provided through other means (zoos, aquaria), and (3) to teach children about animals here is part of the acculturation process. Thus, it is little wonder that these women are so concerned about providing the proper guidance for their children. As Brislin (1993, 129) writes about immigrant parents: “parents are struggling to socialize their children into a culture with which they themselves are not yet comfortable.” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 174 5.2 A display of California sea lions at the Los Angeles Zoo 5.3 UCLA Ocean Discovery Center on the ground level of Santa Monica Pier Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 175 The Chicana, Filipina and African American groups’ attendance at aquaria seems to have been much more minimal. One woman in the Chicana group (who actually was not bom in the U.S. but arrived here over a decade ago, and strictly speaking is thus Latina) exclaimed how beautiful jellyfish are in an aquarium. By removing the fear of these animals, she could reconsider these lovely creatures. Several in the Filipina group mentioned visiting a local aquarium and one sensitively reported that animals in the touchpools could potentially be pestered by the many hands reaching for them. Visits to the aquarium were mentioned only in passing in the African American group. In terms of television programs, shows about sharks were especially popular among Chicanas and Filipinas. Fishing and eating fish Fishing is a relatively popular activity in Southern California that has important economic, social and environmental significance (Resources Agency of California, 1997, 5G-2). One of the discussion question addressed this specifically: “Many people go to the beach to collect food items, like crabs, fish, and clams, which they then take home and cook later. Have you ever done that?” Not only was information garnered on past and present fishing activities (and methods), but also about the socio-cultural meanings of this practice, especially as it is related to changes since coming to the U.S. and the gender division of labor in fishing related activities. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 176 As with the general American population (Responsive Management, 199B, 656), fishing had been a significant practice for most focus group participants when they were children at least (see photograph 5.4). Clearly the recall of these activities was pleasant. These activities provided them a chance to be close to their parents in a relaxed atmosphere, one where much was learned about fish and other marine animals. This was especially true of the Chinese women, whose experience consisted specifically of tidepool collecting for the most part. Interestingly they reported being at odds with American sportfishing practices, because fish are not caught for food, and worse yet, they are caught with “big cruel hooks,” as described by this statement which gathered widespread support among the participants: Americans like animals, but on TV you see programs on sportfishing, catching fish with big hooks, and releasing fish, having fun. But why, if you love animals, why act so cruelly and inflict pain. The fishermen use big hooks that inflict pain. While the Chinese women were interested enough in matters of fishing in the U.S., they did not report fishing or tidepool collecting here, nor did they mention gendered fishing practices despite being asked. The Filipina women however reported having fished both in the Philippines and in the U.S. and were familiar with fish size regulations. They said they fished for food, but clearly also enjoyed the marine environment, mentioned snorkeling and even having noticed the gradual denudation of the sea floor here. Considering the degradation of the once vibrant fishing industry in the Philippines, and perhaps the fact that most of these women are college educated, it is little wonder that they are particularly sensitive to this environmental change. Also Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177 they commented on men in the Philippines who commonly raise fish both for effect (to see who can ‘grow’ the largest fish) and gambling purposes (by fighting the fish). 5.4 Boys fishing off of Redondo Pier Strictly speaking, fishing does not seem to have been such an important activity in the Latina, Chicana or African American groups (see photograph 5.5 and 5.6). For these groups, it was typically the men who fished, while women cleaned the fish and cooked it. Thus the stories had more to do with eating fish and the taste of seafood and fish as an economic resource for the family, than with catching it. For instance, one Latina discussant told us of one of her husband’s catch (abalone) in terms of the money this represented for the family. Meanwhile several in the same group recalled cooking and enjoying the eggs of (protected) sea turtles despite knowing that they risked a heavy Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 178 fine. The Chicanas discussed eating fish on Fridays (as part of Catholic practice), while African American women offered the most commentary on the kinds of fish that taste best. They mentioned many varieties of fish, in the wider context of their discussion which largely centered on eating ‘marginal’ meats (such as those one caught oneself for survival), as a strategy against poverty— a strategy reported in all but the Chicana group. 5.5 Fishing boats docked at Redondo Pier Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 179 5.6 Live crabs for sale on Redondo Pier Together, most fishing activities discussed by the women had taken place when they were children and, for many, in another country. While fishing might supplement the family’s income now and again here in Los Angeles, it had for the most part ended or was only entertained as an occasional activity, an inexpensive family outing or a chance to see the marine environment up close. If fishing continued, it was practiced by other members of the family— the husbands for instance.7 This was not unusual since the women in all but one group (the Chinese group) told us that fishing had 7 Interestingly, other surveys on fishing found that a decline in fishing activities was tied to factors such as time constraints, but also to a disenfranchisement from the mainstream— particularly for women and for African Americans— such as lack of role model (Responsive Management, 1998, 662). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 180 traditionally been a man’s activity. However one should note that because some seafood is considered a delicacy (on a cultural basis, such as the longing for sweet sea worms), people may seek these out despite sanctions, if unavailable or even if too expensive. Japanese and Mexican seafood restaurants on Redondo Pier Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 181 Fishkeeping as a hobby Fishkeeping is often described as an activity that develops an aesthetic and ecological appreciation for fish and their environments (Axelrod and Schultz 1983). It is also considered one of the most common petkeeping activities, after keeping dogs and cats. This trend is reflected in our participants: from the written questionnaire, I found that a third of all participants (16 out of 48 or 33.3%) had raised fish in a home aquarium. This activity is more popular with some groups, being most popular in the Filipina (6 out of 9 participants), Cantonese (6 out of 10) and Chicana groups (4 out of 8). Fish ranked as the most common pet of Cantonese women (although, comparatively, Cantonese participants were least likely to have pets). In contrast, while all or nearly all the African American and Latina participants reported having had pets, only one in each group mentioned having had an aquarium. And an African American participant responded to our question about unusual pets by recalling a friend who had kept poisonous fish (along with a general lifestyle that included other expensive, exotic pets— and a racy sports car!). The topic of aquaria was raised by participants on other occasions than through the written survey. Aquaria issues were extensively discussed by the Cantonese women in terms of the price of fish, the delicate care fish sometimes require and the space fish thrive best in. It was also in this group that cruelty toward fish (i.e. the big hooks that Americans use) was mentioned, a unique occurrence among all groups. That the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 182 Cantonese women report having raised fish is no surprise: this practice (especially goldfish whose popularity has cult status in parts of Asia) has long been part of Chinese culture. That the Filipina women report having had an aquarium at home is a bit more unusual because it seems that it is customarily a man’s job (who may compete in raising the largest specimen). However, while men indeed may have tended to the aquarium, it is a family fixture, and as such, the women may have considered it their own for the sake of our question at least. The Chinese and the Filipina groups’ attraction to fishkeeping is undeniably related to their countries of origin, partly because they are located in some of the world’s richest areas of coastal fauna, and also because this practice is of a long-standing culture-specific tradition. That the young Chicanas reported fish keeping activities is more surprising, especially in light of the fact that the women in the Latina focus groups did not. It may be that fishkeeping, along with raising many dogs, cats and other animals, becomes more popular with the second generation of immigrants. Indeed this ‘intensive’ pet-keeping activity may in part replace the large number of farm animals that are traditionally part of a Mexican rural household but that are not acceptable in Los Angeles. Several Filipina discussants also commented on the lack of social contact here (especially as a new immigrant) which necessitated having a pet ‘to love and talk to.’ For people who come from community-based social environments, life in the U.S. can seem especially lonely. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 183 Because fishkeeping stimulates interests in the fishes’ behavior and in the delicate balance of microecosystems, one might expect that the Cantonese, Filipina, and Chicana groups would be the most knowledgeable about marine environments. And (as mentioned earlier) the Cantonese group was knowledgeable of issues related to fishkeeping, in terms of the cost of exotic fish, and the care and space they need. Curiously however, this knowledge was limited by fishkeeping practices: knowledge was not extended to large-scale environments. For instance, when asked what to do about marine animals that are weakened or are dying on account of El Nino, one Chinese discussant interestingly declared that: About the injured animals, humans should take responsibility. One reason is that some of them can be helped. And the other reason, if we leave them (to die), they could cause health problems. Clearly the experience of fishkeeping (and of having dead fish ‘fouling’ the aquarium) had informed this person’s view of the situation. Also, fishkeeping does not teach about exotic species intrusion (fishkeeping has been the cause of such intrusions in the natural environment), and one of the discussants admitted throwing pet fish in a lake when the fish became too big for her aquarium.8 However, and as mentioned, women in the Chinese group are sensitive to cruelty toward fish. Sensitivity to animals has been shown to increase with petkeeping activities (Driscoll, 1992). In none of the other groups was such (albeit limited) knowledge and/or sensitivity shown about marine creatures. If Filipina men indeed are the prime caretakers of home aquaria, then this 8 One might also note that neither of these issues are commonly addressed in public aquaria. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 184 perhaps explains the women’s focus on other issues. And perhaps the fishkeeping practices of the Chicanas might be limited in experience and in time because they are young. Thus, it seems that the practice of keeping fish may be in part culturally derived, is in some cases differently distributed across genders, and has uneven consequences for knowledge. As in the case of going to the beach and visiting aquaria, fishing and eating fish, and fishkeeping, culture plays an important role in what is learned and in the extent to which new ideas are integrated with old ones. In sum, focus group participants reported many varied practices associated with marine wildlife, both here and elsewhere. Some of these activities were important with them for many reasons: because they consisted of family experiences, at one time brought food to the table, or were occasions to see the wonders of the sea (such as whales and ‘cute jellyfish’). However many practices had changed with time and place for both immigrants and non-immigrants. Some of the consequences of these changes include regrets about losing an important opportunity for socializing for instance, especially as they involve children. Not all practices changed with U.S. residence however, such as Chinese fishkeeping. Also it seems that traditionally the cleaning and cooking of seafood was the purview of women and this had not changed. Speculations about good fish to eat, and ways to prepare seafood were important discussion foci (for all groups but especially the young Chicana group) and thus remained an important practice for discussants, one connecting childhood and/or traditional experiences with contemporary life in Los Angeles. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 185 The number and diversity of marine activities was related to kinds of knowledge. For immigrants especially this knowledge was mostly defined by ‘back home’ experiences, including the longing for particular foods and activities. This knowledge did not extend to the unique characteristics of the Southern California marine environment— because interactions with the local environment are less common and less intense (none reported depending on local fishing for their income or diet for instance). A person saw seaweed (kelp), a prime constituent of California’s marine ecosystem, as dangerous. Some of their fears were allayed by seeing animals in a different context (in aquaria for instance). However, there seem to be large gaps in knowledge about coastal management, or about invading exotic species for instance. Also global issues remain murky, as demonstrated in this quote by a woman in the Latina group (about El Nino): “I think that in part, it’s our fault that this phenomenon happens. Because with the pollution, we throw garbage anywhere,... that makes the earth overheat... you see how many fires exterminate animals.” 5.4 ATTITUDES TOWARD MARINE ANIMALS Several questions elicited the discussants’ attitudes toward marine animals, in particular the questions on El Nino (“During this past year, because of the El Nino, unhealthy sea animals from large to small, from whales and seals to birds and fish, were appearing on our beaches. How should people respond to this kind of situation? Do we, as humans, have responsibility to animals during times like these? Does the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 186 kind of animal affected make a difference?”). The women also discussed their marine attitudes when answering other questions, about practices of other people in particular. Women in two groups also volunteered reflections on another marine incident that stimulated a revealing discussion about attitudes. As with their attitudes toward animals in general, the women’s attitudes toward marine wildlife were diverse but anthropocentric for the most part, and expressed animal welfare and utilitarian-dominionistic views in particular. Some responses also reflected biocentric attitudes however, in statements that were pro animal rights, environmentalistic-naturalistic, and sympathetic to greater coexistence. In response to the question on El Nino and consequences for marine animals, discussants seemed mostly to agree that ‘something’ should be done. They also agreed that help should be forthcoming no matter the species of animal in trouble. Justifications for these positions however varied among discussants and groups, and discussants did not always start by agreeing on them. A closer look at each group’s reactions clarifies this. Both the African American and Filipina discussants began by answering the question on El Nino with a fatalistic statement that, since El Nino is an act of God (African American group) or is a natural occurance (Filipina group), then nothing can be done about it. But quickly this attitude changed as discussions proceeded. In the African American group, someone offered that since we know how to save the animals we should do it (and she added that some animals were rescued). Another person Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 187 mentioned that animals were ‘crying out’ for help and thus should be assisted. Thus the early fatalistic view was amended on the moral basis that: (1) humans could provide care and (2) animals suffer like humans. These arguments justified an animal welfare and even an animal rights attitude for some African American participants. In the Filipina group— whose members were most likely to be college educated— several women stated that El Nino may have had anthropogenic causes, and thus that humans were responsible (clean-ups or government initiatives were suggested). The young Chicanas were not fatalistic, but insisted that we should help animals not only because we can do it, but also because we are the only ones who can do it. Statements of support for animals were so strong that when Marina, the oldest member of the group, cautioned them that this might be a costly proposition (especially in light of all the hungry children in the world, she argued), she partly recanted: ... I mean ideally we should, sure, I mean help them. I don’t know. People say it’s very costly to build the sanctuary for animals, and they complain how they’re feeding animals instead of feeding children. The whole world (would) go hungry and there’s this debate going on. But in an ideal world we should be feeding animals and humans, I guess, but then I don’t know. She was the only discussant who expressed such a view, and despite the fact that she was clearly seen as a leader in the group, others did not jump on the bandwagon. The Latinas expressed a similar animal welfare attitude to the Chicanas, even focusing on human failure to anticipate such a condition (and showing a paternalistic concern). In contrast, the women in the Chinese group stated that if animals could be helped, then Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 188 help should be forthcoming. However, as mentioned earlier, one woman justified this by adding that if the animals were to die, then the waters would be polluted and unhealthy for humans, a most utilitarian-dominionistic statement. When probed about whether it made a difference which kind of animals were suffering, nearly everyone who responded said that differences should not matter. Only one woman in the Chinese group said that she thought differences existed in the value of animals but that she did not know what they were. The Chicanas did not favor particular species, just that help be provided by knowledgeable persons. The Filipinas and Latinas felt similarly. The African American response was that animals are not only ‘ just like humans,’ but likened the difference between animals to differences between humans, and on this basis advocated for the rights of animals to be treated equally: Norma: An animal is an animal and if they need our help, well, you know, we should help them. Georgia: Right. Just like humans, they’re all different, we’re all different in some ways. Norma: In some ways, but, you know, we stay people. Georgia: In some ways, but I would rush to help you. I would, I mean, you know. Norma: Black, white, purple. Georgia: Yeah. So why wouldn’t I rush to help like a goose, a lion? Carla: Animals are just like humans. In the Filipina group, a discussant raised the issue of indigenous rights to hunt a whale. This topic was debated among several participants, who like Mona supported the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 189 Native Americans’ right and saw the hunt as an act of cultural empowerment: I think they should be allowed to hunt. I mean, it’s like an empowerment of their people. I mean after 70 years of not being allowed to do this? I think they should do it. After some debate, Mona bolstered her argument by saying that few animals would be involved and that organizations such as Greenpeace should refocus their attentions: I don’t think it has really that big of an impact that, like, let’s say. “Why don’t you just concentrate on the big whaling ships, you know that kill somewhere... you know, thousands of whales?” I mean, why don’t we just let these people do ... that’s probably their culture, and they’re just going to kill maybe like a few ... Others added that Native Americans kill ‘more spiritually,’ and one likened this to Filipinos killing dogs to eat them. In fact, another discussant, described that the death of animals for cultural reasons was more noble and meaningful than “being killed because they don’t have a home ... like on the freeway.” Both women in the African American and Filipina groups justified particular practices and rights (of both animals and humans) on the basis of ethnic diversity and difference, and in the context of defending their own marginalized socio-cultural practices. The relationship between culture and attitudes toward animals is thus complicated by processes of marginalization and resistance. Struggles over identity and marginalization have been instrumental in preserving some practices through resistance of the dominant culture. For instance, for inner city African American women, for the older or rural bom women the eating of ‘trash’ animals such as Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 190 opossums had carried forth in significance until at least recently, by representing proud resistance to lived oppression and cultural survival. And this may have been the case for the women in the other groups that recounted their fishing and tidepool collecting practices ‘back home.’ For the younger women in the African American group however, the history of oppression had meant that they more significantly extended the rights and privileges of other cultural groups on the basis of cultural relativism, while at the same time, projecting concerns for animals on the basis of a similar anti-racist stance. Such a contradiction was even more profoundly anchored in the focus group conducted with Filipina inner city women. There, age group seemed less important than length of residency in the U.S. (and perhaps frequency of visits to the Philippines) and perception of cultural distance. These women more adamantly identified the right of a culture group to do as please on the basis of cultural survival, while practices (the eating of dogs in particular) were additionally justified by an ecological argument (that the eating of an animal was better than ‘its useless death’). These women recounted specific instances of racialization on the basis of animal related practices in the U.S., explained how these were compounded by human rights abuses in the Philippines (which set up a contest between human and animal rights), and together held that these factors legitimized the rights of any other culture group to do as it saw fit, even when behavior was deemed cruel (such as the ritualized beating of animals). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 191 Finally, in the Chinese group, a participant remarked that there seemed to be a stronger feeling of coexistence with animals in the U.S.: I do feel the difference between the U.S. and Hong Kong in terms of tolerance level. For instance in the U.S., people accept the inconvenience of animals and at Sea World, they don't mind if the whales splash them ... The idea here seems to be co-existence. People bring them [animals] inconvenience too, so there is mutual inconvenience. This participant interprets American practices as being based on a desire for greater coexistence between humans and animals. Her reading shows that although she is baffled by this attitude, she is open to interpreting it as a greater— more democratic— concern for coexistence. This sentiment emerged (albeit unevenly) in all groups. 5.5 CONCLUSIONS In order to examine the formation of attitudes toward marine wildlife, and the role of cultural difference in the attitude formation process, five focus groups were conducted with low income inner city women of different ethnicity (African American, Latina, Chicana, Chinese, and Filipina women) in Los Angeles. Beyond a brief demographic survey, participants were asked questions about their interactions, knowledge and attitudes toward both animals in general, and marine animals specifically. The groups differed in terms of ethnicity, age and education, but most members discussed a wide range of animal related activities, including many involving the marine environment and marine wildlife. While there are great gaps in what we know about each of these women, their experiences and culture, and in how to interpret these relatively time- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 192 constrained discussions, we also gained a rich and unique understanding of their attitudes and how these came to change for instance. Whether immigrants or not, the women related changes in their experiences and interpretations of the marine environment and marine animals. On the one hand, many described a distancing due to life-course and/or geographical changes. Indeed (and not unlike mainstream Americans) many of their sea-related activities took place when they were children and in another context than the Southern California Coast, and this was a key factor in defining what they knew about the local marine environment. Because many of them arrived in Los Angeles later in life and had since made less direct use of the coastal resources, they were also less familiar with the characteristics of local marine wildlife. Because their knowledge had been both place and use specific (as opposed to derived from formal education), it had not always extended to this new environment. And the fact that many of the discussants’ early marine related activities (going to the beach, visiting aquaria, fishing and eating fish) were especially socially and culturally relevant had perhaps been even more critical in ‘distancing’ them from the sea locally: now that place is different, cultural relations have changed as well. On the other hand, many also described what amounts to a rapprochement to animals. Under the influence of norms operating within mainstream American society, they have adopted other or new practices, such as caring for companion animals, and have had direct or indirect contact with mainstream American ideas about the proper Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 193 treatment and rights of animals (and with contradictions within these ideas) or with scientific perspectives on ecosystems. In some instances, this had raised their awareness and has redefined their attitudes toward animals. Indeed the most common attitude was supportive of animal welfare. I expected this since participants were women and since, in Kellert and Berry’s survey (1980), women (as well as younger and more educated persons) demonstrated higher support for this attitude. However the strength of this attitude was also surprising in these focus groups, especially given the low economic status of participants, which is often linked to more utilitarian views of animals. It also suggests that the experience of adjusting to a new culture can engender more humanistic tendencies, presumably depending on the host culture’s general acceptance. As I have mentioned, this is supported in the literature on acculturation (Brislin, 1981). However, these women are marginalized from mainstream society by different geographical, historical, linguistic, socio-cultural and political conditions, and the interpretation of new ideas about nature and animals can conflict with traditional practices and beliefs. For the women in the African American focus group these conditions widened the gap between young and old. For the Latinas, who had relatively limited education and speak little English despite having lived here a number of years, marginalization had heightened their commitment to raising a well- adjusted next generation. And for the young Chicanas we spoke to, this ‘success’ was well on its way. For those who had lived here the shortest time, the Chinese women, acculturation had been especially disconcerting and cohesion in the group was strongest when expressing bafflement over the logic of American practices (“if Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 194 Americans really loved animals ...”). For Filipinas, who had experienced some of the greatest and more lingering cultural distance between new home and old, acculturation seemed to have been less radical. This was apparent when they vigorously defended culturally significant animal related practices— their own and those of others— that go against privileged mainstream views. Because these women experience contrasts in practices and attitudes with heightened acuity, they were more aware of nature and of animals as social constructs. It was no surprise then that they defended their cultural practices— or those of other marginalized groups— on the basis of cultural survival. In many instances they did this despite the close bonds they described having personally developed with companion animals in the U.S., their understanding of animals as sentient beings, and the respect they had gained for nature and animal behavior once here. Nevertheless, in every discussion, the possibility for change in practices, perceptions and attitudes was present, as expressed in the women’s animal welfare and animal rights viewpoints. The role played by place in these women’s attitudes is striking. On the one hand a change of place, has impacted the very nature of their human-animal relationships. On the other hand place has also been integrally implicated in defining or heightening certain attitudes because of the socio-cultural struggles they have encountered, as marginalized peoples. As the significance of this process is evidenced in this work, disenfranchisement can indeed play a strong part in strengthening people’s attachment Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195 to practices that they find culturally meaningful, such as dog eating, even when these practices contradict new experiences, are socially unacceptable or illegal. By understanding how attitudes are cemented (for better or for worse) through marginalization we can begin to understand the role members of mainstream society play in this process. As Elder, Wolch and Emel (1998b) noted : [w]e are left with a dual challenge: how to break the links between animals and racialization, and stop the violence done to people racialized on the basis of their animal practices; and how to make the links between animals and people, and stop the violence directed at animals on the basis of their nonhuman status. (87-88) A major part of this challenge is to learn (perhaps from these women) the ways in which our own practices and attitudes are socially constructed and legitimized. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER SIX- MARINE ANIMAL ORIENTED ORGANIZATIONS, CULTURAL DIVERSITY, AND ATTITUDES TOWARD MARINE ANIMALS We need to find ways of expressing concern about what happens to the animals that do not express some kind of cultural imperialism. (Birke, 1995, 49 quoted by Elder, Wolch and Emel, 1998b, 88) 6.1 INTRODUCTION The Southern California coast has undergone a series of changes due to increased density of population, intense fishing activities, and shifts in the recreational uses of this zone. Interestingly some unique responses to marine environmental problems were initiated in Southern California: this is where concern over the plight of whales was first raised (1967), where a yearly International Fish Count (similar to the Christmas Day Bird Count) was begun (1992), and where an aquarium was prevented from catching whales for captivity purposes (1993). Each of these efforts was bom out of a MAOO (and especially key individuals in them) that was determined and savvy enough to mobilize people and change attitudes. Los Angeles is an excellent setting in which to understand the role played by these organizations and their efforts to ‘make a difference’ in the relationship between humans and marine animals. MAOOs in Los Angeles are comparatively numerous and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 197 span a wide range of perspectives. They fulfill a variety of immediate roles at different levels, and some of them have been in existence for nearly a century. They include State Beaches, aquaria, Federal and State agencies that promote fishing and conservation, and marine animal rescue organizations, as well as a number of popular fishing and nature recreation venues such as whale watching. These organizations display the wonders of the sea, present issues for popular information and consideration, legitimize scientific discourses, and regulate and penalize marine practices. In short, they all play some role in shaping how humans view and treat marine animals. Typically their message is based on science and is directed toward the general population, in part because the activities of the population at large underlie pervasive marine problems such as ocean pollution and urban runoff. But in places that are highly urbanized, like Los Angeles, the mitigation of harmful environmental practices is made more complicated by the fact of population diversity. Angelenos span the spectrum— affluent, working class and low-income, people of color and recent immigrants, and both suburban and inner city residents. This complexity is exacerbated by the fact that people may imbue animals and practices involving animals with great socio-cultural significance. Culture may also directly challenge normative practice in a range of ways: by leading to behavior that resists mainstream rules (such as fishing without a licence by fishers unaccustomed to licencing procedures) or otherwise defies conventional practice (for instance, by calling for an end to keeping whales in captivity). Also, differences in practices and/or attitudes may Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 198 polarize people or contribute to the subjugation of one group over another. On the one hand, conflicts can arise when such practices run counter to those accepted by MAOOs on the basis of scientific or environmental rationale. On the other hand, the extent to which people support the environment or animal welfare (or rights) has been shown to be in part culturally based and class-linked (Guither, 1998, 64), and thus greater diversity introduces more differentials in the acceptance and support of the MAOOs that promote these. Recent scholarly literature, by scientists, social scientists and philosophers, has examined the social construction of nature. This effort has helped identify human bias in how nature is defined and thus treated. As explained in Chapter Three, it has demystified and thus reduced the legitimacy of positivist science and scientific definitions of nature. This has threatened some scientists, who argue that nature is real and can be objectively studied, and that to think otherwise is a recipe for environmental complacency (Soule and Lease 1995). So far this dispute remains unresolved, yet as I shall show, such differences have real implications for organizations that negotiate the human-marine animal relationship. With this analysis, I have asked whether and how MAOOs in Southern California acknowledge that culture plays a role in shaping attitudes toward marine animals, that the meaning of marine animal life varies according to factors such as culture, and in turn, that culture may be a contributing element in the organizations’ appeal and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 199 effectiveness. The study and findings are based on interviews I conducted with MAOO managers. I expected that interviewees would comment on cultural diversity in terms especially of race and ethnicity, and on the practices of immigrants for instance, and hoped to hear about philosophical differences tied to class and professional occupation as reflected in various attitudes. I suspected that such issues might be complex and challenging for some MAOO managers who are not used to dealing with culture and cultural difference. Also I expected that their interpretation would be limited to a conventional interpretation of diversity (e.g. white, black, Latino, Asian, etc.). I was surprised however, to hear them articulate the concept of ‘whiteness’ as a cultural category linked to economic privilege, urbanicity, animal rights views and ignorance of science. This understanding of culture and its impact on practices and attitudes may form a critical first stage of greater awareness of cultural differences. Some people are named in this Chapter, and some of the stories they have recounted may not put them in a pretty light. They were interviewed formally and have been interviewed before, by the local media for instance. None misrepresented the MAOO they were affiliated with. I believe that each of them is deeply committed to the philosophical stances that were expressed, and that these stances are fundamental if we are to identify problems and create solutions, including solutions that address the strategic positioning that takes place in nature-culture debates. I am also convinced of their earnest efforts to safeguard animals and educate the general public, and hope to portray differences between them as important, and not based on deficient professional Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 200 or ethical conducts. I am grateful for their candor— this research depended in great part on their cooperation and sincerity— and I have done my best to preserve their heartfelt (public) message. In this Chapter, first I explain how MAOOs were selected as interview candidates. Following this, I present how interviews were prepared. Then I provide a brief profile of each organization and introduce the persons with whom I spoke. Following this, I discuss specific responses and analyze how MAOOs address culture and cultural difference in terms of both outreach efforts and harmful practices. I conclude with an overall appraisal and a discussion of implications. 6.2 SELECTING AND RECRUITING THE MAOOS TO BE INTERVIEWED As described in Chapter Four, an inventory of AOOs in Los Angeles informed this work by enabling me to identify organizations dealing with marine animals and providing some basic information on which to base a selection of managers to interview and questions to ask them. Compared to AOOs, organizations that deal with marine animals tend to be located in close proximity to the coast and concern themselves with marine animals almost exclusively. Of the 453 AOOs that were recorded, a large majority (274 or 60%) dealt solely with companion animals— a focus Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 201 that does not really exist for marine animals1 . In this section I describe the selection process I used to determine which MAOO manager to interview. Developing an inventory o f MAOOs Of all AOOs, 22 (or about 5%, or 13% of noncompanion animal AOOs) dealt with marine animals (see appendix G). On the basis of an organizational profile I developed from visits and related literature, MAOOs were categorized according to their primary function, a criterion that had worked well for the AOO inventory. Again, these were (1) Education organizations that are focused on informing the public about marine animals, animal status, and care; (2) Recreation organizations that rely on marine animals to provide humans a recreational outlet such as fishing; (3) Service provision organizations that serve the general public by rescuing and managing marine animals; and (4) Advocacy organizations that lobby about issues relating to marine animals. This taxonomy was most helpful initially to organize information about outreach and highlight substantive differences in this respect. I examined the range of characteristics and perspectives (public/private, species specificity, scientific/animal welfare and rights) within each category of organization, as well as the length of the MAOOs’ commitment to local marine animals, depth and Some home aquaria and turtle clubs deal with marine animals, but none do so exclusively in Los Angeles. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 202 breadth of influence, and the nature of their programs. A number of them, especially ‘Education’ MAOOs such as aquaria, fulfilled the same function in much the same way in one place as in another. I thus selected those that were the most relevant to this project, in terms of having been active for the longest time for instance. Of the original 22 MAOOs, 10 were selected for interviews (see Table 6.1 and Map 6.1). In the end I was satisfied that I had reached a point where no new information was forthcoming and where “no new themes or constructs emerge[d]” (Baxter and Eyles, 1997, 512). Table 6.1 Taxonomy of Selected Marine Animal Oriented Organizations (MAOOs) Education Recreation Service provision Advocacy 1. Leo Carillo 1. National Marine 1. South Bay 1. National Marine State Beach Fisheries Service: Wildlife Fisheries Service: the Pacific Rehabilitation Marine Mammal 2. Cabrillo Marine Recreational Center Stranding Network Aquarium Fisheries 2. Marine 2. The Whale 3. Los Angeles 2. California Mammal Rescue Rescue Team County Museum Department of Center at Fort of Natural History Fish & Game: Youth Fishing McArthur 4. The American Project (“ Los Cetacean Society Tiburones”) Education MAOOs use a wide range of educative strategies: they provide basic information, that is generally based on science, conservation and environmentalism, in exhibits, videos, lectures, books and newsletters, and programs such as tidepool walks. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 203 They serve many thousands of people each year, and are on the increase in Los Angeles as well as the U.S., especially as large— and expensive— centers of attraction (such as the new Long Beach Aquarium for instance). The education MAOOs that were selected for interviews are: Leo Carillo State Park, the Cabrillo Marine Aquarium, the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum and the Los Angeles Chapter o f the American Cetacean Society. They offer a wide array of educative perspectives and scales of outreach: for instance, the Cabrillo Marine Aquarium has extensive displays and programming and serves as a meeting site for other MAOOs. In addition they have a protracted history in Los Angeles, whereby they are more likely to have shaped and been shaped by people here. I also selected MAOOs that, because of their location or their work, ‘witness’ more interactions between humans and marine animals, such as Leo Carillo State Beach. The scientists at the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History and the American Cetacean Society, in contrast, contribute a different perspective because their work is ‘behind the public scene.’ Some recreation organizations such as sport fishermen’s clubs actively promote fishing as a sport and raising fry to support the population of ‘sport fish.’ These recreation MAOOs do little outreach work (especially outside of fishers), and their interests are in great part safeguarded by regulatory agencies such as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G), whose budgets depend on licencing and related revenues. Both agencies operate in part to inform the public about wildlife management policies through Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Map 6.1 Location of MAOOs selected for interviews Leo Carillo State Beach jjjttSMBptfllational Marine Pish cries.Service W B S f i T PaciGcRecreational Fisheries Marine Mammal Stranding Network CalifomiaDepartment of Pish and Game Cabrillo Marine Aquarium American Cetacean Society Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 205 programs, such as the Pacific Recreational Fisheries (NMFS) or the Youth Fishing Program (CDF&G). I focus on both these recreational programs. Service provision MAOOs protect or rescue marine animals. These organizations are often run by a handful of devoted people. I focused on one of these, the South Bay Wildlife Rehabilitation Center that takes in a number of sea birds. The Marine Mammal Care Center at Fort McArthur, which takes in sea lions and seals, has a more clinical approach and formal organization. These contrasting organizations are the primary rescue centers in the region. A new rescue center for sea birds is scheduled to open in Fall 2000 near the Marine Mammal Care Center. But in the meanwhile animals found in Los Angeles are often transported to Orange County and San Diego County where some more extensive marine aquatic facilities exist, such as Sea World. The interviews with Directors of the South Bay Wildlife Rehabilitation Center and the Marine Mammal Care Center took place over the telephone (at their request). Advocacy organizations exist to promote a particular view of marine animals and their appropriate use by humans. The National Marine Fisheries Service’s Marine Mammal Stranding Network's role is ad vocative in its support of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972 and 1994). It was created to monitor marine mammal populations (by putting observers on fishing boats and identifying probable causes of marine mammal deaths), to organize rescues, and ultimately to stop all human-caused injuries to marine mammals. The Whale Rescue Team is a direct action organization that Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 206 rescues marine mammals and birds at sea but most of all acts to challenge the Marine Mammal Stranding Network, by shaping public opinion and even official responses to events such as whale strandings. Some of the world’s leading international MAOOs involved in advocacy, such as The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and Greenpeace, at one time were highly visible in Los Angeles. But these groups have divested themselves from the area recently. Part of this may be attributed to a sharp decline in membership in environmental organizations across the nation in the mid 1990s, and to a general mainstreaming of environmentalism (and of environmental organizations) since the Clinton Administration. But the decline in members may also have been caused by these organizations’ under-appreciation for culture-specific factors in philanthropic behavior for instance.2 Indeed, while Greenpeace attributes the closure of its Los Angeles office to the difficulty in mobilizing people in this city, and while it is true that ‘traditional’ philanthropy has not fared well in Los Angeles despite some of the highest household incomes in the country (Fears, 1999, B l), some important socio-cultural factors may be at the root of this situation. Indeed, one reason for fewer donations might be that a large share of residents contribute at a grass-roots level by helping family and friends, a situation which “the vast philanthropic sector has not yet made significant efforts to tap into” (Cardenas, 1999, El). Another reason for a lack of support is that environmental groups have at times displayed insensitivity toward working class 2 This under-appreciation would include lack of cultural diversity on their boards or staff. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 207 people, disenfranchising them from environmental causes. This may have resonated in Los Angeles especially; for instance in 1990, Scott Trimingham, then President of The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying (about the plight of commercial fishers who would soon find themselves ‘cut out’): "... we are not a job placement agency, and changes to protect our environment may adversely affect some people” (Evans, 1990, B3). From time to time dramatic but effective media moments are still orchestrated in Los Angeles by Advocacy organizations such as Greenpeace, including the 1997 unfurling of a banner atop the Atlantic Richfield’s fifty story downtown building in a campaign against oil exploration in the arctic, and a 1998 protest against a ship bringing newsprint into Long Beach Harbor. I repeatedly tried to interview individuals from Greenpeace and from The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society who were or are currently active in the Los Angeles area, but failed beyond receiving newsletters, newspaper reprints and membership offers. The reason given in both cases was that they were too busy or that I would not be able to quote them. I tracked people who had gone on to work in other environmental organizations, such as Bill Snelling formerly of Greenpeace and now with Green Earth in San Francisco, and he, in part, agreed that organizations such as Greenpeace had too readily dismissed a culturally diverse support base in Los Angeles (personal communication 1999). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 208 In sum, the organizations whose leaders I interviewed, were specifically selected for their contrasting experiences, in order to capture the full range of influences, styles, and emphases that shape attitudes toward marine animals in Los Angeles County. These specialists know each other well, are aware of the roles they each play (especially when they perform similar or complementary functions or in other ways work together), and with whom they disagree. Interviews were conducted and transcribed over a three-month period, then I performed an initial analysis of each discussion separately. 6.3 ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILES The MAOOs’ profiles were drafted from interviews and public documents, such as mission statements, annual reports and newsletters. These background profiles include the MAOO’s location and year of origin, affiliations, status as a public or private nonprofit organization, overview of outreach activities, and visitation trends and figures when applicable. In this section I summarize these profiles and describe the tenure and professional background of the person I interviewed. Again, I have organized the organizational profiles according to their primary function. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Education MAOOs 209 Leo Carillo State Beach (see photograph 6.1 and 6.2) is located off of the Pacific Coast Highway about 10 minutes northwest of the City of Malibu, straddling Los Angeles and Ventura County. Established in 1953 by the California Department of Recreation and Parks, this State Beach attracts campers and day visitors, as well as people interested in nature walks and naturalist-led visits to the tidepools, to the nature center, and special events such as the Whale Festival. In 1997-98 (the last available count) guided tours attracted about 7,000 visitors, and about 8,000 school children on school field trips. The Park’s Head Ranger, John Falk, explained that volunteers had recently been mobilized following a steady increase in tidepool collecting by the general public over the last decade. So far programming has largely been an effort to directly influence this behavior. I interviewed Cara O’Brien, a State Park Interpreter who was recommended by Falk as being most knowledgeable about outreach efforts. O’Brien has worked at Leo Carillo for the last four years. Prior to this she was a diver and taught underwater ecology at the Channel Islands National Park. The Cabrillo Marine Aquarium (CMA) (see photograph 6.3 and 6.4) is located on the shore at Cabrillo Beach between Point Fermin and the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro. A facility of the City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, the Aquarium is sited in a park, near a popular beach and fishing pier. It is also located near an offshore Superfund site where fish have been contaminated by DDT and PCB. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 210 6.1 A troop of girl scouts observes tidepool creatures at Leo Carillo State Beach 6.2 Seagulls and brown pelicans at Carillo State Beach Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 211 6.3 Entrance to Cabrillo Marine Aquarium (designed by architect Frank Gehry to resemble a biology lab) The Aquarium’s collection of specimens of local marine plants and animals was opened for public viewing in the 1930s; CMA moved into its current building in 1981. A hands-on approach is encouraged: the tanks can be viewed from all sides, a tidepool has been created in the facility, and labs provide direct supervised access to local marine creatures. A bulletin board also informs visitors of local news coverage of marine issues. CMA attracts about 450,000 people each year, many of whom are Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 212 visiting the beach and pier, or attending functions and festivals in the park (such as the Annual Festival of Philippine Arts and Culture), and school children on field trips. I interviewed Director Suzanne Lawrenz-Miller, Ph. D., a marine biologist who has been at CMA for the last 25 years. 6.4 Visitors listen to a docent at the tidepools inside Cabrillo Marine Aquarium The Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History first opened the doors of its imposing building in 1913 and is located in Exposition Park in South Central Los Angeles. It has the second largest collection of marine mammal specimens in the world. Despite this collection, the museum’s exhibits of marine wildlife are dusty and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 213 outdated. All exhibits are slated for refurbishing within the next decade: the Museum is coming out of a period of harsh budgetary constraints that severely impacted exhibit development and outreach. Unlike Leo Carillo and Cabrillo Marine Aquarium, the museum collects an entry fee. I interviewed marine biologist Dr. John Heyning, Deputy Director of Research and Collections and Curator of Mammals. Heyning started as a museum volunteer in the 1970s, and since then, has curated marine exhibits such as the international traveling exhibit Masters of the Ocean Realm: Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises. He has also been a high profile volunteer of the National Marine Mammal Stranding Network (see below) for the last 20 years. Heyning lectures widely in the Los Angeles area, particularly at the American Cetacean Society’s monthly meetings (see below) where he teaches whale watching to new docents. The Los Angeles Chapter of the American Cetacean Society (LA-ACS) was the first chapter of this national organization and in 1967, the first organization to sound the alarm about the rapid demise of whales around the world. The Society has remained an all-volunteer education organization, whereby volunteers, who often are scientists such as the Natural History Museum’s John Heyning, teach whale watching to about 150 new docents each year. This private organization also sponsors the annual Southern California Gray Whale census at Point Vicente Interpretative Center, another educative MAOO in Rancho Palos Verde, and holds monthly scientific meetings at Cabrillo Marine Aquarium in San Pedro. I interviewed Bernardo Alps, member of LA- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 214 ACS since 1990 and current President. Alps is a newspaper photographer with a passionate interest in science and whales. Recreation MAOOs The Pacific Recreational Fisheries (PRF) is a program of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Regional Office in Long Beach. This agency is part of National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Department of Commerce. It has assisted fisheries since the 1870s and more recently has managed living marine resources and their habitat in U.S. waters. I interviewed Marty Golden, an oceanographer and the Pacific Recreational Fisheries Coordinator for NMFS. Golden is a spokesman on recreational fishing issues. He develops sport fishing guidelines and informative pamphlets, gives presentations in schools, and participates in local fairs such as fishing shows all over the Pacific U.S. The California Department of Fish and Game’s Youth Fishing Program (YFP) (or Los Tiburones— S'pamsh for ‘the sharks’) started in the early 1990s at about the same time as other Urban Fishing Programs were being developed across the country. The program is free and involves fifteen youth centers (such as Boys and Girls’ Clubs targeting middle school age children), or about 350 children, in fishing and competition. Events take place along the South Coast but mostly in Los Angeles. I interviewed Paul Gregory, the program’s current leader and a marine biologist. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Service Provision MAOOs 215 The South Bay Wildlife Rehabilitation Center (SBWR) started twenty years ago, is located in Rancho Palos Verde and rescues over 1400 wild birds and mammals each year. It is one of a few MAOOs in the region that takes in marine birds (no marine mammals). Volunteers make educational wildlife presentations and reach an estimated 30,000 children and adults each year. No fees are charged but donations make up for rescue expenses. I interviewed Ann Lynch, founder and Director of the South Bay Wildlife Rehabilitation Center. Lynch is a school teacher with long experience in rescuing birds. The Marine Mammal Care Center at Fort McArthur (MMCC) (see photograph 6.5 and 6.6) is affiliated with the National Marine Mammal Stranding Network (see below) and located near Point Fermin in San Pedro. This center was established in 1987, following a settlement between the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and the textbook publisher Harcourt General. In the early 1980s Harcourt General purchased and then immediately closed Marineland, a marine theme park in Palos Verde that was partly subsidized by LAUSD as a teaching and field trip facility for children. Harcourt’s sudden decision to close the facility angered3 the community 3 The community was particularly angered because Harcourt General was suspected of buying Marineland only to acquire two whales for its theme park in San Diego. Indeed whales could no longer be caught in the wild and one of the two Marineland whales had produced several calves. As it turns out, the whales were indeed immediately moved to San Diego, lending credence to the popular suspicions. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 1 6 and provoked a lawsuit whereby the company was ordered to partly finance local marine rescue and educational facilities, such as MMCC. MMCC rescues up to 300 marine mammals each year. The outdoor facility is open every day and the public can readily see the animals recuperating in their pens (see photograph 6.7). There is also a classroom, a lab and a gift shop. Once a year the facility celebrates the Day of the Seals, a day of outreach for children. I spoke on the telephone to Director Jackie Ott, who has been at the Center for the last twelve years, is a marine biologist and also has a degree in psychology. trvma f 0 at Fort MacArthur 6.5 Marine Mammal Care Center logo Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 217 6.6 A Marine Mammal Care Center veterinarian explains how spiny fish can get stuck in the throat of sea lions 6.7 Sea lion pups are recuperating in pens at the Marine Mammal Care Center Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advocacy MAOOs 218 One may not readily think of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as an advocacy organization, but some programs within this federal agency play such a role. This is the case of the National Marine Mammal Stranding Network. This partnership of federal, state and local governments, museums, academic institutions, aquaria, and other non-profit organizations was established by Dr. James Mead of the Smithsonian Institution, when the Marine Mammal Protection Act first passed in 1972. The Act was most recently re-authorized in 1994, and continues to impose a moratorium on the taking and importation of marine mammals. NMFS is also required to use the Stranding Network and other sources to collect information on basic health parameters in marine animal populations, record strandings (injured or dead), and dispense scientific information to the general public. NMFS’s Regional Coordinator and marine biologist Joe Cordaro has headed the Stranding Network in the region for the last twelve years. He is the only person in California who can issue rescue permits for wild marine mammals (except for sea otters) and authorize their handling. The Whale Rescue Team (WRT) is a private association of about fifty volunteers who patrol the coast, untangle marine animals from gill nets, and call to attention the plight of these animals and of beached whales and dolphins. This organization began its work in 1985 with Peter Wallerstein, a founding member of The Sea Shepherd Society, who left that organization because he felt that donations were used Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 219 disproportionately for administration costs and because he was frustrated by the lack of local efforts in rescuing marine mammals. As he said: here I am, going to the Bering Sea, confronting Japanese drift net boats and it’s happening right here in our own backyard!” From his days with The Sea Shepherd Society he has continued to use strategies of civil disobedience and public mobilization through media appeal, and has taken on the role of law enforcement at sea. The WRT ultimately led a successful campaign against the Shedd Aquarium’s capturing of whales off of the California Coast in 1993. Today WRT is authorized by the Stranding Network and contracted by the cities of Los Angeles and Santa Monica to rescue marine mammals. Wallerstein is working on a project in Venice Beach to remedy the lack of tank space for recovering animals in the region . I interviewed Wallerstein at his home. Nearly all MAOOs are located along the coastline or their activities take place on the shore. They have close affiliation with one another, are mostly public or private but have formed some alliances between public and private entities, as exemplified by the Stranding Network. Managers and experts are white, and all our interviewees were white, and were either scientists, educators or long time marine animal advocates. About half of them were women. With respect to institutional culture, each of these MAOOs has a different style and emphasis, plays a different role or exerts a specific kind of influence, and indeed they expressed a range of viewpoints and alternative perspectives. I took this to indicate that my selection of MAOOs was successful. Once the main ‘camps’ were identified, the information (especially on harmful practices) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 220 became repetitive and only added details that had to do with highly specific circumstances. 6.4 RESPONSES AND FINDINGS The interview' questions inquired into whether the MAOOs were sensitive to cultural diversity and how they had positioned themselves vis-a-vis culture, especially in terms of shaping attitudes toward marine wildlife. Answers are presented according to the main topics covered in the interviews, namely, Cultural diversity and MAOO demographics; Outreach efforts; Harmful practices and attitudes; and Paying attention to culture. 6.4.1 CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND MAOO DEMOGRAPHICS My questions began with an inquiry into the MAOO’s size, staff, volunteers, members and public. I asked about the ethnic breakdown of the staff and of volunteers and whether a formal survey of the organizations’ ‘public’ and members had recently been conducted. These clear-cut questions were important to confirm the breadth and reach of programs and to indicate the extent to which respondents and/or the MAOO itself were aware of trends in visitation, in other words how well they knew their public. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 221 Cultural diversity among public, volunteers, members and staff was not high on the agenda of the education MAOOs. In the case of the public, a reason for this lack of concern might be that they simply are confident that they are attracting a diverse population. This is the case of Cabrillo Marine Aquarium, which because of its location on a popular and culturally diverse beach (beginning with mostly African American visitors twenty years ago to a nearly all Hispanic population today), free admission policy, and high attendance by LAUSD schoolchildren, seems to reach all sorts of people. Other MAOOs such as Leo Carillo and the Cetacean Society can also rely on high attendance from children on field trips to ‘provide’ a substantial number of nonwhite visitors, since over 70% of LAUSD school children are Latino. However none of these organizations have conducted a visitor survey in the last decade to confirm their casual observations, although Leo Carillo and Cabrillo reported some significant shifts in their demographics. And the records they keep do not include important information on programs or topics: for instance Leo Carillo only counts visitors who go on the Parks’ Nature Walks and Tidepool Watches, and in an upcoming poll, Cabrillo will only ask about where visitors come from (to show that the Aquarium draws people from far afield and thus plays a significant economic role locally). Cabrillo and the Museum of Natural History even expressed a reluctance to ask people about their ethnicity as a reason for not including such a question on membership forms or in surveys. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 222 Both staff and volunteers at education MAOOs tended to be white, with more ethnic diversity among interpreters than among marine scientists. Miller of Cabrillo (400 to 500 volunteers) explained that volunteers who came through a summer school program were more ethnically diverse, and the Cetacean Society reported that African American or Latino volunteers had from time to time participated in some of their volunteer programs. However this was either not the case at the present or had been a fairly isolated instance. At Cabrillo the membership organization (Friends of CMA) enjoys a high rate of renewals and has increased from 600 members in 1984 to about 2,000 today. Yet, based on casual conversation, Miller knows that the ethnic composition of CMA members has remained white despite changes in beach visitor demographics. Heyning, from the Museum of Natural History, explained that the museum keeps track of members by zip code (and not ethnicity) and that they tended to come “from everywhere except locally.” Cultural diversity was more of a ‘top issue’ for both recreation MAOOs that I considered. Undoubtedly this is due to the fact that both are mandated to be sensitive to ethnic diversity and hire a diverse staff. Some attention to culture and cultural diversity is evident also because cultural trends significant for marine animals are taking place. Marty Golden, who oversees sport fishing in the region, is aware of two demographic shifts: first, that starting this decade there has been a downward trend in the total number of people (about two million) who fish in California, and second, that because fewer fishers are fishing in bigger boats (and these would usually be white and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 223 rich fishers) and because more people are fishing on party boats (usually ‘minority* people), it seems that an ethnic shift may also be taking place. Gregory, who heads the Youth Fishing Program (that was actually started by a Latino man) has a culturally diverse staff and pool of volunteers. Indeed volunteers are often the children’s parents or employees of the Youth Centers where the children come from. Service provision MAOOs tend to have a small staff and to concentrate the volunteers’ energies on rescues, not cultural outreach. For instance, the South Bay Wildlife Rehabilitation Center is a volunteer organization that is run by one person (Ann Lynch) with the support of volunteers. An atmosphere of ongoing daily crisis underscores the financial precariousness of this effort: what is needed most urgently is money. The Marine Mammal Care Center is different because it is intended as a place where education also plays a large role. Still, its commitment to outreach is limited to the 20,000 or so LAUSD children it is mandated to serve, and whoever else happens to come (“tens of thousands, there’s no way to tell”). The Care Center has a pool of volunteers that numbers “anywhere between 60 and 1000,” whom by Ott’s admission come to the Center without any outreach encouragement being necessary. Service provision MAOOs do not make the ethnicity or cultural diversity of their public an issue. For instance Lynch ascribes her public’s diversity simply to her facility’s location, and instead, is intent on stimulating in all people the sensitivity that “will make them care.” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 224 An advocacy MAOO such as NMFS’s Stranding Network Program in Los Angeles is composed of volunteers who are scientists (from the Natural History Museum for instance) with Cordaro at the helm. The public served by the Program is broad: from beach goers and life guards who find animals and call them to Cordaro’s attention, to property owners with a decomposing whale by their beachfront window, to fishers who protest that sea lions are protected. Cordaro was unaware of ethnic differences but believes that the telephone calls of concern he sometimes receives from the public are from “Caucasians and some Hispanic women.” Wallerstein does not know who the Whale Rescue Team’s fifty or so volunteers reaches, because much of the efforts are directed at stirring media debates and newspaper articles. Wallerstein’s outreach strategy is indeed focused on the media, but he is also intent on kindling a ‘helping impetus’ in disadvantaged African American children particularly. He explains how he relates to them despite the fact that he is white, by letting them know that the importance of caring about animals had not been obvious to him as a youngster: ... I didn’t grow up in the pretty neighborhoods. I grew up in an area where it was day to day with life and survival, and getting beat [sic] up, dealing with those kinds of socio-economic issues ... for your family too, and the future of that. Not some whale. Wallerstein makes a point of taking these children on his boat to see seals and sea lions ‘up close,’ including the animals he releases from the stranglehold of gill nets. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 225 MAOOs are for the most part unsure or unaware of the ethnic breakdown of their public or volunteers and members, although several had experienced demographic shifts over the last decade (but only know of this on an anecdotal basis). Casual observation can justifiably satisfy several of these MAOO managers that their public is indeed diverse especially because of the LAUSD children they serve. But staff and volunteers are mostly white except when mandated otherwise. Some MAOOs (and perhaps ‘scientific’ MAOOs are more prone to this) expressed being uncomfortable asking their visitors questions about culture and ethnicity, not knowing whether to refer to people as ‘Black’ or ‘African American’ for instance, or being confused about people of mixed heritage. This embarrassment is by no means confined to these organizations, but stands in the way of communication— may undermine their good work by not being more inclusive. Other MAOOs consider that they have more urgent priorities (especially rescue organizations that operate on a continuous crisis mode) and that the well-being of animals comes first and foremost. Meanwhile, some MAOOs are beginning to take action in attracting and involving more diverse people. For instance, O’Brien at Leo Carillo was well aware of the homogenous visitor demographics and its relationship to outreach. She explained how this had shaped her commitment to her job early on, and described what steps she had begun to take toward more effective outreach. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 226 6.4.2 OUTREACH EFFORTS The next topic dealt with the MAOO’s outreach efforts. I asked whether particular populations had been targeted for outreach to increase the numbers of visitors, members or volunteers. I invited MAOO managers to explain how groups had been selected for targeting, and how outreach strategies might vary for different groups, by translating brochures and signage in Spanish for instance. Lastly I inquired into the actual and perceived results of such outreach efforts. MAOO outreach varies quite a bit, for instance MAOOs now solicit donations or memberships more and thus send newsletters regularly, post a web site, issue press releases or get newspaper ads to announce upcoming events or other programing information. Outreach in the form of programming is the most popular among education MAOOs, especially programming for children. Sometimes MAOOs also make a particular effort to counter the lack of staff diversity. According to O ’Brien at Leo Carillo, good communication skills are an integral effort of the hiring process because the staff speaks English only. To attract nonwhites O ’Brien has obtained funds from the Getty Foundation for an African American intern who speaks Spanish, and she is writing grants that could provide scholarship money for economically disadvantaged children in the future. She volunteered her own limitation of being “so park oriented” and had decided that she first needed help to identify under-served communities. Now O’Brien is planning a second outreach effort to increase the Park’s Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 227 pool of volunteers, but explained that because of the Beach’s isolated location and because volunteers are for the most part older and white, the ability to effectively mentor children that come from radically different environments is still limited. Staff and volunteers at Cabrillo Marine Aquarium are trained in ‘sheltered English,’ a mix of informal sign language and simple syntax and words, in order to address people with varying English language ability. Many interesting tasks that include laboratory research are aimed at attracting and pleasing more volunteers with a wide range of interests. Extensive programming is on-going, and the facility was especially designed to be accessible and make science nonthreatening or less intimidating. Plans are in the works for outreach to be conducted on the nearby beach. As a whole, the Museum of Natural History is attempting to be more welcoming of minorities and this is evident in the new exhibits and in other efforts, such as the scheduling of a guest lecture in Spanish. This effort stops short however of a deeper involvement with culture. In his exhibit’s book for the general public (Masters o f the Ocean Realm, 1994), Heyning did include a chapter on cultural differences in attitudes towards whaling. But he selected groups of ‘coastal people’ (as examples of whalers and non-whalers), whose whaling practices are either traditional or known from ancient history, and although he consulted with Inuits and Tlingits, is basically not critical of commercial whaling for instance. When the exhibit went to Japan, Japanese curators translated it and removed the exhibit’s section on whaling, replacing it with a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 228 presumably ‘milder’ version. When asked about his reaction toward this curatorial change, Heyning replied that it was their call: “[i]t’s their own thing. It wasn’t something I was going to argue about.” When asked whether he had taken a public position on the Makahs4, he replied: “No ... Even though we try to be educational, I also don’t make myself a target.” There is little translated signage or materials, and as far as upcoming new exhibits are concerned, cultural expertise will be sought ‘in house’ by asking staff archeologist and ethnologists. The American Cetacean Society formed to be “a medium for the scientists, ‘a telephone’ between them and the interested layman and laywoman who didn’t know much about whales and dolphins but who wanted to learn” (DeBus 1999). While outreach is of primary concern to the Society (through docent training and whale watching programs), efforts have focused on influencing people at large and— with the exception of school children— not on targeting particular groups. Among 150 docents, a dozen are non whites. Recreation MAOOs varied greatly in their outreach goals and methods according to the leaders’ enthusiasm and perception of need. Golden, of the Pacific Recreational Fisheries, reaches anglers by visiting fishing and boating shows, speaking at sport fishermen’s organizations, and distributing literature to tackle shops and fishing boat operations. Some material has been translated but he blamed budget problems and 4 The Makahs, a Native American tribe from Washington, hunted a whale in the Spring 1999. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 229 slow bureaucracy for not producing more, and explained that outreach was up to each expert at the Fisheries Service according to his or her perception of need. Golden conceded that an advantage of such fragmentation is that each expert has the trust of a particular public, as is the case of him with anglers. And indeed he stated that an information sheet he prepared (on removing fishing hooks and line from snared seabirds) was done so in part to protect fishers from public criticism: First, seabirds are so commonly affected. And second it’s a nuisance to the fishermen. If they don’t police themselves, then they’re fair game for the animal rights’ groups. So it’s a matter of being pro-active and anticipating problems. And it’s good conservation. Gregory, of the Youth Fishing Program, stated that its outreach strategy had been target specific. He works with kids from inner-city Youth Centers, kids who are becoming independent but “still can influence their parents to fish.” The children are loaned fishing rods and reels (provided by NMFS), get repeated exposure through regular events, and with a ratio of one adult to four kids, receive a lot of individual attention. They learn to identify and measure the fish (an important part of deciding whether to release it), and learn Fish and Game rules. Gregory was aware that his outreach efforts could be more extensive and reach more children, but explained that the staff had enough work as it was, and that other programs also required his attention. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 230 6.8 A seagull is anxiously waiting for these fishermen to catch a fish Service provision MAOOs have devoted most of their efforts to rescuing animals and defined outreach in terms of fund raising opportunities. For instance, for Lynch, this means speaking to any school group, meeting and picnic that she is invited to. In terms of encouraging caring attitudes, she focuses on the ‘rescue moment’ when a person brings her an animal and, according to Lynch, is most responsive to new ways of thinking. She explained: “The rescue experience awakens in people a desire to do more.” The Marine Mammal Care Center has no problem attracting a diverse public, since again children from LAUSD visit on field trips. It does not conduct much outreach beyond these school classes, but some classes are bilingual and translated Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 231 materials are available. Volunteers readily come to the Center without any recruitment efforts being necessary. Advocacy MAOOs differ very much in their outreach efforts. On the one hand Wallerstein of the Whale Rescue Team recruits volunteers and members from the public through bi-monthly training sessions on the beach. He believes that people need an outlet to help and this recognition of the ‘helping impetus’ is at the core of the organization’s outreach efforts. So when people have called him about a sea lion on a beach, WRT quickly dispatches a volunteer with leaflets (including pamphlets in Spanish) to talk to them. The Whale Rescue Team is also confrontational: when seals and sea lions were starving during a recent El Nino season, and Cordaro (of the Stranding Network) imposed a 48 hour waiting period on rescues (because rescue centers were near capacity), the Team posted signs saying that animals might have been saved were it not for the Stranding Network! In contrast, Cordaro does not conduct outreach and produces no publications, except for a signboard placed by the sea lions on the beaches to advise people to stay away from them. He receives many calls of alarm about stranded animals, but feels that the public’s sympathies are misguided. He said that the translation of informative pamphlets is not possible because so many languages are spoken in the region. The MAOOs’ outreach strategies had some things in common: a strong focus on children and on programming, and relatedly an emphasis on getting volunteers to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 232 perform more tasks. Language obstacles were dealt with by providing some translated material (especially to children), using a greatly simplified form of English, or not doing anything at all. None of the MAOOs targeted any particular group for outreach (except to promote fishing or to protect fishers from criticism), but relied on more ad hoc measures to bridge gaps. Two organizations (the South Bay Wildlife Rehabilitation Center and The Whale Rescue Team), are attentive to the moment when people witness an animal in trouble or bring one that they have found, they distribute information about the animal right then, and in the case of WRT (an advocacy MAOO) sometimes has publicly criticized the (perceived) official non-response toward the crisis or rescue. In a final report of the State Interagency Marine Managed Areas Workgroup (2000), these findings were generally substantiated for particular State agencies and were blamed on a lack of coordination and a lack of distribution of information (13-14) that is worsened by the fact that critical factors, such as “stock assessments and habitat distribution” (17) are not known or made available to managers. 6.4.3 CULTURALLY-RELATED PRACTICES AND ATTITUDES The next set of questions addressed the kinds of human practices that locally harm marine animals, the trends in these interactions, and whether the people I interviewed had eye-witnessed incidents, heard about them through formal channels, or through casual conversations. These questions served to establish a ‘list’ of harmful activities, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 233 highlight their temporal and spatial aspects, and indicate how negative interactions were prioritized by the MAOO. When I asked whether any <jf these practices could be considered cultural, the answers showed that the word ‘cultural’ was taken to mean ‘traditional,’ and in this respect few practices were mentioned (save divers caught for collecting the Protected Garibaldi fish for ritual Polynesian wedding table decoration, and other particular fish being eaten in different cultures). I have organized responses by type of harmful practice rather than MAOO function. A practice that MAOOs closest to the shore often discussed was tidepool collecting by people, referred to as ‘bucket brigades.’ This practice was mentioned by Miller at the Cabrillo Marine Aquarium, by Gregory of the California Department of Fish and Game, and by the staff at Leo Carillo State Beach, who all said that it had taken place for a long time, with some periods of increased activity and with few effective deterrents. Miller and O’Brien in particular were well aware of the deleterious effects of tidepool collecting and explained that the tidepools nearby the MAOO had been almost completely depleted over the last decades. Miller had conducted research about this and had concluded that the worst harm was caused by “lone poachers.” This was confirmed by conversations with game wardens who told her of individuals caught with large bags of abalone. Gregory of the Youth Fishing Program said that fishers who get mussels for bait get them from the piers’ pylons (not tidepools) and are thus not likely culprits. Both Leo Carillo’s Head Ranger John Falk and interpreter O ’Brien recalled people who collected both mussels for bait and sea stars to show around to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 234 others. Concerns over tidepool collecting have resulted in the current focus on programing at Leo Carillo. Only Miller of Cabrillo mentioned that there might be a cultural connection associated with this practice (namely that some tidepool collectors were Vietnamese, but that this was incidental), this will be discussed at greater length in the next section. A second practice that was discussed by interviewees was the killing of sea lions and seals by fishermen. No ethnicity was ascribed to this practice. No counts of dead or injured animals were available, and considerable question remained about whether such killings actually do take place. Gregory explained that, about fifteen years ago, the California Department of Fish and Game had made attempts to deter seals and sea lions away from fishing boats (see photograph 6.9 and 6.10), as they had tried to do with coyotes (for ranchers). These attempts caused much public outrage against Fish and Game, but may simultaneously have encouraged fishermen to deter sea lions by similar and ‘more effective’ means. A San Pedro fisherman was also caught shooting a sea lion in the harbor four years ago and this event had remained etched in the public’s mind, according to several interviewees. Gregory of the Youth Fishing Program is also involved in an outreach program directed at fishers in the form of a survey, and explained that it was designed to both assess actual numbers of marine mammal interactions with recreational fishers, and to give fishers ‘a chance’ to vent their anger about sea lions stealing their fish. As Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 235 Gregory said he had expected all along, few altercations take place. Heyning and Garrett, both of the Natural History Museum, believe that fishermen are angry at sea lions and that some pelican had been shot (see photograph 6.11), but that these were isolated and vengeful incidents and that the shootings had not increased. 6.9 Sea lions ‘hanging around’ the fishing boats in San Pedro However, Alps (the Cetacean Society), Wallerstein (the Whale Rescue Team), Golden and Cordaro (the National Marine Fisheries), all thought that shootings still occur and perhaps have increased. Since there is little chance anyone would witness such an act, this is based on rumors and assumptions. But Alps has seen the mutilated bodies of dead sea lions on the coast and so has Wallerstein. Wallerstein reported overhearing fishermen discuss this on the marine radio, and thinks they feed seals fish wrapped Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 236 around an explosive to ‘get rid of them.’ Golden said that he was aware of this through reading interviews in fishing newsletters, and from calls and letters he receives from party boat captains and fishing associations. Cordaro of the Stranding Network said that the decomposing bodies of sea lions (including those dead of natural causes) are found headless because their heads decompose first, not that fishers necessarily blew them off. Also he explained that shooting at seals and sea lions had been legal until 1994 (when it was completely banned by the Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments), and that each year about 60-70 seals and sea lions were indeed found injured or killed by bullets, probably by fishers along the California Coast. In fact, Cordaro suspected that many more were indeed killed or maimed but could not prove this. Rescue agencies and beach maintenance crews throughout California are expected to fill out monthly reports of marine mammal rescues and burials, and return them to him. While this is federally mandated, he knows that noncompliance is common.5 Both Alps and Wallerstein felt that there were not enough local shelters for injured marine mammals. Gill netting is forbidden in California State waters (and internationally condemned) but all four interviewees who mentioned it believed that gill nets are still doing harm in the area. Ott said that animals entrapped in gill nets are brought in at the Marine 5 Cordaro said: “90% of the agencies do not report dead animals but just dispose o f them” and added that he felt powerless in forcing coastal agencies to report the animals. Under the 1994 Amendments of the Marine Mammals Protection Act, NMFS is mandated to cut human-related injuries to marine mammals to near zero by 2001 ( ' <http://www.nmfs.gov/> 7/19/99). This is not up to Cordaro specifically, but the fewer the injuries the agency is made aware of, the better. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 237 Mammal Care Center. Cordaro knows of this too and Wallerstein contributed that gill nets are used outside of the three-mile State zone, and thus that marine mammals continue to die, only further away from sight. He knows this because he patrols the coast regularly. Heyning thought that the problem had decreased and Gregory said that it had stopped “except in Huntington Flats.” Other fishing equipment has caused concerns, especially for sea birds who swallow hooks and get tangled up in fishing lines. This was mentioned by MAOO officials of all sorts, including (as already discussed) Golden who has issued an information card on how to remove lines and hooks from sea birds, as well as ethical guidelines for sportfishers. 6.10 Chovie Clipper, a major attraction for local sea lions Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 238 6.11 Brown pelicans with high hopes For the most part, interviewees expressed alarm and deep concern about harmful practices and listed a range of them, from obtrusive impacts to malicious and lethal activities. These were based mostly on seeing the (sometimes alleged) results of the practices and informal conversations with wardens for instance. However reliable injury data are not systematically recorded and made available, not even for protected species. So managers are left to their own means of assessment: Miller of Cabrillo Aquarium had conducted research on tidepool depletion, O’Brien compared photos and slides of the tidepools at Leo Carillo from ten years ago to today, and Alps has walked below Palos Verde to look for sea lion carcasses on the rocks. These ad hoc means do not give them the confidence to identify trends, and/or attribute trends to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 239 natural or human-caused factors. It is little wonder then that they only anecdotally reported a few ‘traditional’ cultural activities that harm marine animals and their habitat. And indeed the practices recollected so far do not seem to have a specific ‘culture’ component to them. However the kind of neglect, harassment, and even cruelty that cause some of the practices that they did discuss, were certainly understood as still pervasive, and in some instances interviewees had taken action, including unauthorized action, to remedy harm. 6.4.4 PAYING ATTENTION TO CULTURE The last topic of our questions dealt with the MAOOs’ social construction of harmful practices and attitudes. Here respondents were asked whether they attributed practices and attitudes to culture or to other influences, and on what basis they drew such conclusions. I asked whether they deemed these significant and if they ever solicited help from other organizations, to fashion more culturally sensitive displays for instance. Finally I asked whether they had ever taken a public position on culture- specific practices. Traditional ‘ cultural ’ practices Few MAOO managers commented about traditional ‘cultural’ practices, like those engaged in by persons of non-European heritage. Ott and Lynch knew of no harmful Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 240 practices that had culture at their roots. Most other references had to do with food preparation practices, such as Latinos making fish tacos (Golden). Those that did talk about other issues, were highly specific in terms of culture and species of animals. Gregory, for example, described the use of Garibaldi fish at weddings by Samoans and other Polynesians. Miller, who described some tidepool collectors as Vietnamese, explained that in their country there were no laws curtailing this practice,6 and that their poaching had a mosdy economic basis. O’Brien, in contrast, suggested that one ‘could tell’ that non-Anglos collected tidepool creatures because Anglos would never eat those particular sorts of animals. Wallerstein conceded that Vietnamese fishermen used gillnets but that white fishermen did so as well. Heyning claimed that gillnetting had been spread worldwide from Western nations through the FAO originally. O’Brien and Miller contended that non-native bom people do not always know that a fishing licence is required to fish. When asked, Miller reported that in the aquarium’s program on sharks, the detrimental effects of hunting sharks for their fins are mentioned. Gregory knew that people of different cultures eat different parts of a fish, and taught the young people in the Youth Fishing Program how to clean and cut fish properly, especially with respect to avoiding contaminated parts of the fish, or certain fish altogether (such as the white croaker, a fish with a high body burden of pesticides). Cabrillo Marine Aquarium is located in a high toxicity marine area by a fishing pier where mostly Latino fishermen fish. While there is an official bilingual sign on the This can not be casually assumed: many regions have century-old customary or taboo-related methods of controlling the taking o f natural resources including tidepool collection. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 241 Pier that indicates that white croakers caught in the area should not be eaten, the Aquarium has so far given little attention to the situation. Miller said that the museum’s naturalist who periodically conducts a class on fishing at the Pier explains that some fish caught there should not be consumed, and she and several other staff members recently attended a symposium on communicating fish contamination issues to diverse (ethnic) communities. Alps explained that: minority groups fish very heavily, and I don’t think they have that relationship with ocean life that you would have when you’ve enjoyed studying it or protecting i t ... I mean, it’s either a resource and if you can catch it, you’ll eat it, or if you don’t, then don’t bother with it. These leaders may not pick up on other sorts of cultural practices because they do not identify them as such except when related to some types of food (as with fish tacos which they know from eating at ‘ethnic’ restaurants). In any case, none of the interviewees thought that traditional cultural practices were of much significance and took them to be incidental. Instead, practices and attitudes were more eagerly ascribed to universals, to ‘the way things are.’ For instance, O’Brien subsumed harmful interactions as ‘things people do to learn’: ... I go back to my childhood and I had a sea shell collection. That’s how I learned about it. Half of being a kid is when you kill an insect or something, you learn. So for me it’s really hard to balance that. They learn by touching and feeling and sometimes hurting. It’s the learning process [...] but not even a generation ago, it was fine to pick up these animals, but people simply do not realize that rules have changed since then. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lynch, of the South Bay Wildlife Rehab, interpreted human actions differently. For one thing she sees both the best (rescues) and the worst (mutilations and neglect) of impacts, so she has given a lot of thought as to why and how some people can be so kind and caring and others so cruel. She ascribes neither types of behavior to culture, but explained that a positive attitude can be nurtured in all people, no matter their cultural, socio-economic or educational background. She believes this on the basis of seeing “people of all kinds” bring her animals, even the lowly pigeons she said. But she also expressed her dislike of fishermen and others who think it best to ‘let nature take its course’ (as some scientists and wildlife managers do). Lynch distanced herself from animal rights advocate such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Despite her views about both scientists and animal rights advocates, her work was praised in interviews with people on both sides of the spectrum (for example both Heyning and Wallerstein knew of her and expressed their approval of her work). Golden was particularly sensitive to the harm caused by fishers to birds. This is to be expected since he represents the interests of recreational fisheries. Thus Golden blamed the actions that harm marine animals on accidents and on irresponsible fishermen, a viewpoint shared by Cordaro also. They based this on casual observations, such as “people shoot at seals when they’ve had a little too much to drink.” Golden has addressed the morality of human actions through an information leaflet that spells out ‘angler ethics,’ with the help of sister agencies such as the California Department of Fish and Game. He described the care he had taken in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 243 wording it but was not sure how effective this effort has been. Gregory, of the Youth Fishing Program, is of the same view and supports the teaching of sound wildlife management practice through fishing, in order to shape people’s awareness of the ocean (and support of the agency). Meanwhile Alps felt that harmful practices are not even based on particular attitudes and said: “People are just upset because their fish are being eaten in front of their eyes. It’s really very understandable.” For Miller the problem is economic desperation: for instance tidepool poachers may well have been Vietnamese but their behavior is the result of the fact that as small time commercial fishers, they had suffered the most from the fisheries depletion in the region at that time, and had had to resort to catching sea urchins to make a living. By being taught notions of wildlife conservation they, and everyone else equally, can learn the appropriate ways of relating to nature that will support wildlife management and the proper use of living ‘resources’ by humans. In this way science is used to normalize cultural differences and all the (troublesome?) specificities that they entail: by circumventing culture, science gives you ‘more bang for the buck’. However, as Pulido (2000, 15) writes on environmental racism: It is precisely because few whites are aware of the benefits they receive simply from being white and that their actions, without malicious intent, may undermine the well-being of people of color, that white privilege is so powerful and pervasive. [...] because racism is associated with malicious intent, whites can exonerate themselves of all racist tendencies, all the while ignoring their investment in white privilege. It is this ability to sever intent from outcome that allows whites to acknowledge that racism exists, yet seldom identify themselves as racist. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 244 Harmful practices were generally ascribed to routine things people do, habits that had become harmful mostly because of a changed context: such as radical tidepool depletion, increased population density, and diminished public acceptance for ‘getting rid o f bothersome animals. This changed context became most clear when these MAOO managers spoke about the steps to take in response to stranded or suffering animals. Among interviewees, this discussion even overshadowed concerns about any other harmful practices and was highly polarized. Animal Rights as Anglo Culture Most ascriptions of practices and attitudes by participants generally suggested that actions are based on universals of human experience, such as curiosity, generosity, callousness, irresponsibility, or desperation. But the discussions on the social construction of attitudes also veered to the alleged harm caused by people holding beliefs in animal rights in some form or another. Scientists among MAOO managers especially linked animal rights thinking to a prosperous and city-based Anglo culture7 (and to a minor extent Hispanic women, for instance mentioned by Cordaro and Wallerstein), and had a lot to say about it. They consistently related this view to ignorance, and again proposed the teaching of science as the remedy. This is how Cordaro of the Stranding Network saw ‘the problem’: For a profile of Animal Rights activists see Guither, 1998, 64. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 245 The problem is the general public, they’re not looking at the fact that there are so many animals out there that these shootings are not having any kind of impact on the population as a whole, they’re looking at the individual animal. They don’t care that this fisherman is losing all his money. They feel ‘that’s the animal’s home, and if he can’t live with that he should think of another way of making money.’ They’re not very sympathetic. Heyning, a member of the Stranding Network, supported the view of ‘Animal Rights people’ as thoughtless, and laughed when describing how ‘foolish’ such people are in the face of nature: ... about 4-5 years ago, we had a stranded humpback whale in Venice, California. And I had people chanting to the dead whale, reading poetry to it, burning incense for its soul. So you run into the whole gamut of humanity. Several explanations as to why animal rights attitudes are popular here and now, were advanced. Gregory believed that the culprits are “urban centricity” (a term he used in opposition to human-nature relationships in a rural context8 ) and nature shows on television. He felt that such shows paint an unrealistic view of nature, one that does not promote sound scientific wildlife management, and he went on to explain: “... urbanites may love seals but would be annoyed by them if they fished, just like they are with coyotes. They are ignorant. They watch nature shows on TV that focus on the wonders of the natural world, not on the reality of it.” He made light of the animal rights standpoint and ‘lack of logic’: To illustrate this, Gregory described people’s reactions to seeing a deer killed by hunters in the back of a pick-up truck in Bakersfield vs. Los Angeles. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 246 A PETA member looks at an animal and they [sic] think: if I were that animal, would I be happy? So when they go to the zoo, they say ‘that animal is not happy: it shouldn’t be there.’ Everything should be natural and free. So they don’t want you to have a tank of fish or a dog on a leash, I mean if you live in the country and your dog can run around and kill wildlife, I guess that’s OK because it’s being a happy dog! A similar assessment was made by Alps who explained how popular (pro-rescue) perceptions are both ‘cultural’ and (thus) mistaken: It is a cultural thing that she [JJ, a stranded whale] was rescued at all, because if she had washed up in any other spot on the Coast she would have just died like whales always do, but she washed up right here where there are so many people ... so all of a sudden, she was rescued. From a biology standpoint, it’s neither important nor even right to rescue her, because if she washed out that’s probably because of a genetic defect, then she should get out of the gene pool. It was basically just a ‘feel good thing’ for the humans, it wasn’t for the whale. The right thing to do is to let nature take it’s course, but people aren’t going to accept a thing like that. Cordaro explained that people’s urge to rescue is related to a paradox between high levels of individual well-being and privilege on the one hand, and helplessness on the other hand: “It’s just the white people wanting to save every animal that’s in jeopardy. That’s really an anglo saxon thing... people are so disgusted with the world around, and they feel helpless to do anything, so they think ‘here’s a baby animal and I can do something to help that.’ ” According to him, this lack of personal reconciliation prevents people from ‘realistic’ assessments, both about the fate of sick animals and their own relationship to nature, and leads to even greater short-sightedness: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 247 One thing about the rehab, what they don’t understand, there is this perception that once the animal is released it will live a long merry life and what they don’t realize is that if that animal couldn’t survive to begin with, it was due to poor survival skills, and that just some food and a few shots of antibiotic isn’t going to make a difference. But it’s an ‘out of sight, out of mind’ type thing: ‘we don’t care as long as we don’t have to look at it.’ But they should think. Look if you want to live near the ocean, you have to expect this kind of stuff. MAOO managers who were scientifically trained were more likely to attribute harmful practices to ‘things people do’ rather than to consider differentials in the meanings of animals and the practices that involve them. They tended to be more concerned about unscientific practices and attitudes that involved the rescue of marine mammals. They considered them to be biased due to a lack of knowledge of the nonhuman realm and of fundamental natural processes such as evolution, coupled with class and ethnicity- based privilege. They saw this distorted view as extending against fishers, with the public at large being blind to their interests. Some of the respondents explained how this bias for protecting animals ‘at all costs’ was also based on anthropomorphism, a mistaken understanding of the animal experience based on thinking that no difference ever exists and that all experiences are equal. With almost no exception, they showed more tolerance for people who commit harm to animals through neglect, accidents or other circumstances than to those who rescue them. In short these MAOO managers were frustrated by what they view are critical interferences with the natural world (and with their work). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 248 The level of frustration they feel can easily be understood. On the one hand, science has provided reliable and servicable explanations of the natural world, and has long been hailed as definitive and bias free. In addition, science (including wildlife management) has been used to negotiate an astounding level of profitability for the benefit and pleasure of humans. But, on the other hand, MAOO leaders have seen their work directly challenged by non-scientists and the public. For instance, Heyning described he had experienced a shift, and how the distribution of power had changed here and now: [t]he biggest problem with strandings, is that if you get a live stranded animal that quite frankly would be best off euthanized, that option is almost unavailable to you because it would be too hard to explain to the public at that time. They think that through a miracle you could save that animal. In Heyning’s view people expect that science can resolve all problems, but he does not note that, at the same time, people are having more misgivings about when and how science is used. Heyning is also frustrated by laws that have resulted from popular misgivings, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act that protects marine mammals like sea lions without any means of population control, and he exclaimed: “...we’re in a country where you can’t do anything anyway because they’re all protected!” This view was recounted over and over again, with others like Cordaro explaining that he had experienced increased pressure from NMFS to make exceptions and depart from standard wildlife management policy, in order to go along with public demands Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 249 instead. He recalled a significant instance where his judgement had been overruled, to enable the rescue of a stranded whale that eventually died “anyway.” After this incident, he substantially curbed his outreach efforts and participation at Whale Fairs for instance, saying “sometimes you just want to have the week-end off to yourself.” Some of the MAOO respondents who are science-trained have chosen to work in isolation, such as Ott of the Marine Mammal Care Center, who denied that cultural factors have anything to do with injuries, outreach, or perceptions about animals. She said that animals injured by humans “only represent 10%” of the animals that make it to the Center, and thus that whatever effects humans have is minimal. The Center’s main official affiliation is with the Stranding Network. Outreach is focused on teaching biology and non-human ecology to LAUSD children and talking to visitors in front of the recovery pens. Others, such as Gregory, reported feeling that he and others in the agency they represent were unappreciated: ... that’s another thing that upsets me when I watch a nature show where they’ll have a Fish and Game person banding ducks— they don’t mention that they’re from Fish and Game, that it’s supported by hunters. Meanwhile an organization like the Cetacean Society is circumspect about ‘speaking out’ about cultural practices and issues statements only after they have been checked and rechecked, so that the organization will provide a uniform and ‘rational’ response: One thing about ACS, is it’s very very [sic] careful about taking positions, everything is based on science, there’s like a whole process to arrive at, like we have a policy book, we can only take a position on something that is in the policy book, it’s reviewed by a panel of scientists. Like, we don’t have a specific position on the Makahs at the moment although we have one on aboriginal whaling. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 250 Such care with position statements is common and makes sense. However it is also indicative of the fact that the credibility of some MAOOs is on the line when it comes to dealing with issues that may be controversial and culturally sensitive. One way to defend themselves is for the MAOOs to be pro-active. For example, while Miller said that CMA had not received complaints about keeping animals in captivity or about taking animals from the wild in order to replenish the tanks, the Aquarium’s current expansion includes an aquaculture lab. This lab will serve the dual function of replenishing the tanks and of teaching visitors how fragile marine environments and animals are. As Miller put it: “we are aware that we need to play a role of stewardship especially on this issue.” The best example of a conservation organization dealing with culture more directly is Leo Carillo State Beach. There, O’Brien has encountered a number of situations that have tested her interpretative skills. She related how she had dealt with the public when they had seen a seal on the beach, thought that it was suffering, and gotten upset. This got worse when seals and sea lions were actually starving and dying on the beach, due to a recent El Nino season. She explained her conundrum, starting with what she told people: It’s El Nino ... Anytime a population reaches its maximum it needs to happen but it’s normal, this is OK. It’s awful to see, but dead things float off to sea, give them room, enjoy yourself.’ But it’s hard: who wants to be on a picnic out there and there’s this animal over there all emaciated, I can’t blame them. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 251 There are other moments when she has to act as a mediator between nature and culture: I was talking to the kids at the Leo Carillo Junior Ranger program ... about death. And kids are trying to work this topic out anyway, so death kept coming up, ‘well, my dog was sick and died,’ and I was like ‘see, it’s OK, it’s OK, all is well.’ People don’t want to hear that, but populations get higher, nobody wants to see it, but we see it and it’s important. It’s just as important to see the ugly side of nature. It can be beautiful if you want to look at it that way. O’Brien went on to say that she would like to step into more difficult debates, and introduce people to different viewpoints, about whether fishing should continue at the Beach for instance. As an interpreter she was both comfortable and eager to negotiate the treacherous ground of opinion-making, but she did not think that the volunteers would be able or willing to try it, especially with a public unreceptive to rethinking their own fishing practices or unwilling to enter into any debate. The ‘unscientific’ perspective Wallerstein of the Whale Rescue Team clearly introduced his views as unabashedly unscientific and partial. When I asked him if he had had scientific training in marine biology, he replied: No, no formal education. Passion, some of it is for selfish reasons. Trying to ease some of the restlessness inside my own soul about our planet and all life in general, not just marine [...] I’ve also been a vegetarian for twenty seven years. My respect is across the board, I don’t hold marine mammals in any higher reverence than I do my dogs, a salamander, a bird or a tree. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 252 Wallerstein ascribes his beliefs and actions to a personal (and narcissist) examination and moral assessment of the meaning of his life on earth. He has reconciled his own sense of mission with the needs that he feels marine animals have. He does not blame science per se for standing in the way of rescue efforts but believes that the Stranding Network should be in other hands than the NMFS because it is part of the Department of Commerce and is thus, he believes, motivated by commerce first and foremost. For the professed animal rights activist, nothing but direct-action will correct the problem, and the problem is Joe Cordaro and the agency he represents. He gives several reasons for this: NMFS does not want to rescue. Cordaro who runs the Marine Mammal Stranding Network was quoted in the newspaper saying: ‘there’s no good scientific reason to rescue, but if we didn’t the public would hang us.’ That’s the Federal Government’s attitude. Wallerstein believes that rescue centers such as the Marine Mammal Care Center are equally guilty and deceitful. He is suspicious of them because they have sometimes handed seals (that had become imprinted to humans during their recovery) over to marine theme parks and zoos: And even San Pedro [the Marine Mammal Care Center], some centers are so ‘in bed’ with the Federal Government, and Sea World, it’s all one thing, that facilities like San Pedro are a source of pinnipeds for Sea World, for the zoos around this country. And that’s unacceptable, to say a little animal who is now too imprinted with human beings, which I don’t believe happens, I believe you can break that. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 253 In speaking about officials in NMFS he explains their reticence to act by ascribing to them a cultural identity (rather than a philosophical difference about science or wildlife management), and in doing so perhaps uses ‘the race card’ himself: See the big problem is the white [bureaucracy]..., a big part of this ethnic stuff is ‘the good old boys,’ this is it right here. They are so narrow minded, so closed-minded, so cold-hearted, and just so concerned with their own jobs and lives that they block everything else out and that they will aggressively fight any possibility for change. Altogether, his anger is based on the belief that government officials have mismanaged the power they were entrusted with: “They could do ... they have the power, they could have done more and they failed, they have failed miserably, not just protecting marine mammals but also the fisheries ...” In sum, harmful practices affecting marine animals were not generally explained on the basis of culture or ethnicity. Instead, factors underlying these practices were defined as universal human characteristics, including the self interest of bureaucrats. While casual and malicious harm went largely normalized, the discussion about ‘well- intended attitudes,’ such as those of the public, were hotly contested especially by scientists. They saw this popular trend toward the animal rights philosophy as based on class and privilege (and thus whiteness), and as defined by ignorance. Only science could help overcome such a cultural bias. This attitude has made scientifically-oriented organization leaders partly ineffectual in dealing with a public that holds some animal rights-like values. It has also delayed them from conducting the kind of outreach that would attract a more diverse public (beyond LAUSD school children). Worst of all, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 254 some have found themselves having to defend a law they do not believe in. Their response (or non-response) has made them an easy target of ‘unscientific’ views. 6.5 CONCLUSIONS In order to clarify whether and how MAOOs’ perceive and respond to cultural factors that shape attitudes and practices toward marine animals, I conducted a series of semi structured interviews with leaders of education, recreation, service provision and advocacy MAOOs. I selected MAOOs on account of their presence and influence in Los Angeles, and asked them about the ethnic composition of their staff and public, their outreach efforts, the harmful practices they were aware of, and their explanations for these problems. I reached a point in the interviews where the information relevant to the research project was reiterated with only minor variation, allowing me to begin to unravel the MAOOs’ motivations and outreach perspectives with confidence. One of the more striking findings from these interviews is that most MAOOs managers seemed unconcerned about the ethnic breakdown of their staff, members, volunteers or public. The most common reason for this was that visitors were ethnically diverse because a large number of them were LAUSD school children. This focus had led to outreach efforts directed almost exclusively at children, who are easy to reach (they are brought in by institutionalized programs and either speak English or are becoming bilingual). No surveys had been conducted to examine the composition Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 255 of adult attendance and participation. This may be especially unfortunate for non- Anglo populations whose views are ignored or left unaddressed. New immigrants may not have the money or time to seek out information or volunteer, may feel excluded by programming that is so child oriented, and may resign themselves to being a ‘lost generation.’ The waiting lists for adult schooling attest to the fact that such resignation not the course most would chose and hint at an openness to engage in a more active role when, for instance, visiting the aquarium. MAOOs, especially education MAOOs, should be more proactive toward knowing their adult visitors. Trends in the staffing of MAOOs may have actually diminished the likelihood of outreach to non-Anglo populations. For instance MAOOs have become more reliant on volunteers and as a few of the respondents explained, this dependence can be problematic: volunteers require recruitment, training, and retention efforts, and this can be a heavy burden. Also, the expertise of volunteers varies, they can neither act as ‘professional’ role models (in the sense of getting kids to think of themselves as future scientists), nor cultural role models (volunteers are often white), and do not produce community engagement ‘magically.’ There was also a certain lack of concern about harmful marine animal practices or at least lack of complex thinking about such practices and this went hand in hand with specific place-based differences in practices, or with the role of their organization as able to mediate effectively with place-based differences. There were notable Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 256 exceptions to this, but mostly I found that the level of concern was insufficient to catalyze the development of a system to estimate the prevalence of such practices— even those involving injuries to rare marine animal species. Several managers expressed the depth of their concern and had personally taken some action to more clearly assess the problems. However they seemed at a loss as to what to do about assessing the magnitude of such problems. Attitudes of the public toward marine animals were rarely linked to cultural factors or place. This could either be because practices rooted in culture-specific worldviews are indeed rare or because attitudes have not been recognized as having anything to do with culture. I suspect that because managers are not too aware of cultural differences, they experience difficulty in recognizing them even when some practices are perpetuated in the face of laws and mainstream social norms. Instead the managers’ construction of the causes of harmful practices ranged from universals of the human experience to simple accidents, with one important exception: the well-intended efforts of people trying to rescue or otherwise protect animals. This was an especially contentious point for interview respondents trained and employed as scientists, wildlife managers, and naturalists, who thus ironically seem more troubled by people trying to help animals than by people who harm them. There are important reasons for this seemingly contradictory view. Animal welfare and animal rights views and the increased popularity of these views are problematic for Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 257 scientists in two main ways. First, they stand in opposition to the scientific perspective which focuses on animals as populations and species (and not individuals). Second, animal rights views are changing their working environment in terms of altered expectations and diminished public appreciation for the role played by marine scientists and managers. In contrast, scientists see the animal rights (and to a lesser extent, the animal welfare) perspective as the result of ignorance about nature and ‘sound’ wildlife management. They explained this view as based on whiteness, privilege, urban living and the media, and said that such experiences prevented a ‘realistic’ view of nature and natural processes, and of the roles humans play in them. Nearly all scientific managers reported being increasingly challenged by this perspective, at a variety of levels (from questions to accusations). Some said that this ‘socio-cultural’ bias was epitomized by the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and its 1994 amendments. They reacted in a number of ways: by retreating from public outreach, focusing more on science, protecting groups caught ‘in the middle’ (such as commercial and recreational fishers), and in a few instances, being pro-active and addressing public concerns. Education MAOOs seemed to handle this challenge most constructively. I was interested to find that beyond major philosophical disagreements, there were some interesting similarities in how respondents constructed each of the ‘camps’ on the basis of class, race and ethnicity. Respondents knew that I was interested in race/ethnicity but also thought that (for one reason or another) they did not have much Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 258 to contribute on this topic. In fact they may have been slightly embarrassed that they had not done surveys, etc. But to some extent, both ‘camps’ talked of Anglo culture as if they were themselves non-Anglos. In an ironic use of the ‘race card,’ they used the opposite viewpoint as if it were race-based, and as an othering device. I assume that they used this form of race-making because they thought it a convenient and effective strategy to express distance, disagreement, and disrespect. To criticize someone’s views by characterizing it as an Anglo view, when one is Anglo and in front of an Anglo interviewer seems harmless enough, yet it drives home the point about difference being unbridgeable because it is likened to a biological characteristic. It intimates that participants feel that the distance between them and ‘other’ is too great, that trust can not be expected, and that a middle ground will not be found. Nevertheless such an understanding of white culture forms a critical starting point from which to build a greater appreciation for the impact of (other) cultures on practices and attitudes toward marine animals, and may stimulate self-reflection about their own views and practices. This would enable them to play a more active and effective role in the search for solutions to harmful practices, as well as enhance educational efforts. Clearly there is a call for such a role, especially considering that immigrants, for instance, assimilate by adopting many mainstream values, and that they may indeed join in the current popular movement towards animal welfare and animal rights values. The Sea Shepherd Society and Greenpeace, that left Los Angeles in part because they failed to mobilize Angelenos, have since learned to take culture Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 259 into account elsewhere. Because of cultural expectations, some wildlife managers are already forced to uphold policies that they believe to be unwise, leading to their demoralization and distrust of the public, sometimes leaving them open to further criticism and loss of authority. A project aimed at reaching out to diverse Angelenos and becoming more inclusive of these concerns, far from being threatening, could ultimately help shape new and more environmentally friendly attitudes. As Miller of the Cabrillo Marine Aquarium put it: I think it’s fun to interact with people and with immigrants. Many of them are much closer to nature than the typical Californian, so they really get excited when they see an unusual creature on the beach, and even when we don’t understand the language, it’s fun. Like a few months ago, there was a really low tide and there were some beautiful moon snails in the intertidal zone, and there was a fisherman and his son, and we couldn’t understand each other, but we used sign language and he showed me things and I showed him things. It was great fun to see this together, we were looking at the snails for about half an hour ... Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER SEVEN- CONCLUSION 7.1 INTRODUCTION The purposes of this research have been to examine if, and if so how, culture and attitudes toward marine animals are related, and to illustrate some of the key processes that might be involved in such a relationship. Both attitudes and culture were understood as defined by place, in terms of where people are bom, where they grow up, live and feel ‘at home.’ Place was also understood as a critical component in a socio-cultural struggle for dominance, and thus as an integral part of the process of attitude formation. With this, I aimed to clarify how attitudes toward marine animals can shape the social construction of ‘otherness,’ the cultural processes that intensify attitudes (mainstream or non-mainstream) in culturally diverse environments, and the ways in which cultural differences are implicated in the marginalization and racialization of various peoples. The starting point of this inquiry was a series of critical advances that had been made in cultural geography over the last decades, whereby space was reconceptualized from a ‘neutral container’ to a critical component of power relationships, one inherendy constitutive of everyday life. While the ‘modem subject’ was idealized as universal, consensual, and homogenous; ‘new’ social science in contrast has embraced Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 261 difference, partiality, and multivocality, with an ensuing reconceptualization of race, ethnicity and culture. Meanwhile, science has partly been destabilized by some critics who view it as a modem project that is socially constructed. Slowly this is bringing about new ways of thinking about animals (since animals have been inscribed as subjects of science par excellence), just as animal behaviorists are breaking through fundamental assumptions about nonhuman animal intelligence, creativity, and agency. These changes follow the rise of popular movements in Western (privileged) society, from environmentalism to the animal rights movement, that continue (for better or for worse) to radicalize politics-as-usual. In the last few years, new ways of thinking about animals have made inroads in ‘new’ cultural geography, and have kicked off the subfield of animal geography, where-unlike traditional cultural geography’s treatment of animals— animals are now understood in both a socio-cultural context and as beings with intelligence and agency. Since its inception, animal geography has been emboldened by the overt political project to achieve equity for animals, and by geographers such as Wolch, Emel, Anderson, Philo and Wilbert, to address how the human-nonhuman animal divide is part and parcel of the social construction of human difference, and thus of interhuman racialization. However because animal geography is recent, the research on human- nonhuman animal relations tends to be somewhat eclectic, crystalized around a narrow Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 262 range of standpoints, and has only begun to address important topics such as science and scientism. Animal geography stands at a turning point, both critically and strategically. A first part of this endeavor is to empirically support the theoretical advances that animal geography has already made, while, at the same time, to broaden the geographic discourse around animals, or more specifically around the relationship between human-nonhuman animals by for instance considering attitudes. In this research, I begin to do just that by examining the socio-cultural context where attitudes are mediated. As with other animal geographers, my own engagement stems from a desire to promote a nature-society rapprochement that is based neither on an essentialization nor a denaturalization of animals, and from a related purpose to foster anti-racist ways for us to relate to each other. My analysis is defined by its geographic conceptual framework and is based on an empirical methodology that is locally grounded. Attitudinal research has to some extent reoriented its epistemology thanks to new social theory, and this is fostering the use of qualitative approaches in a field still dominated by quantitative surveys. Along with ‘new’ approaches, attitudinal research is turning toward new topics, from a description of attitudes toward animals to their explanation and the understanding of the processes that shape these attitudes. Where, at best, demographic characteristics were linked to particular knowledge (defined by science), practices (viewed outside of their cultural context), and attitudes (understood as individual), attitudes today are conceptually reframed as contextual and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 263 dynamic-which has gone far to generate a new appreciation for their complexity. More pragmatically, some factors that have shown to impact attitudes toward animals, have been given some attention. But not all, far from it. For instance the attitudes of poor inner city people, people of color, and women-a population most vulnerable to social stigma--, have not been addressed so far. And only now are researchers turning their attentions to attitudes toward some of the charismatic marine animals, such as whales and dolphins, but have not considered other marine creatures. In this research, I produce a distinctly geographic understanding of attitudes, based on a conceptual framework that involves global, local, and individual contexts. I focus on the local context of Los Angeles specifically, because of the presence of wide social, economic, and cultural diversity, and the ready possibility for urban residents to interact with marine animals. My investigation is based on a two part methodology. First, five focus groups with low income inner city women of different ethnicities were conducted. Participants were asked about their interactions, knowledge and attitudes toward both animals in general, and marine animals in particular. They were also asked about changes in their attitudes, about the factors they attributed these to, and how they considered practices and attitudes at odds with their own, in their own culture and cross-culturally. In the second part of the research, I interviewed MAOO managers that had been selected on the basis of their own role in the MAOO, the MAOO’s function (education, recreation, service provision and advocacy) and within these, their views of cultural practices Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 264 toward marine animals. Here I inquired into the cultural diversity of their public, their staffing, their MAOOs’ outreach efforts, the harmful practices they saw, and how these might be related to culture. I asked whether they looked at diversity as a problem or an opportunity (or consider it at all) and what culture-related issue they found to be most problematic. In this concluding Chapter, I first summarize the research’s general findings and, in a second part, elaborate on their key implications. On the basis of these implications, I make recommendations and propose specific directions for future research on this topic. Finally I highlight the most important and/or novel findings of this research, key implications and recommendations. 7.2 RESEARCH FINDINGS With this research I demonstrate that culture is implicated in the complex formation of attitudes toward marine animals. I document how this is operationalized through the persistence of place-based knowledge and practices, and also how the process of identity (both group and individual) formation is an integral part of this complexity. I explain how, in specific contexts, this may involve related processes such as cultural relativism, stigmatization and racialization. I present my final interpretations in this section, starting with general findings about knowledge, practices and attitudes, and continuing with a description of the role played by cultural diversity in attitude formation, what some of the specific processes of this relationship are, and how these processes are inherently and critically place-based. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7.2.1 GENERAL FINDINGS: A CONTRAST OF VIEWS 265 The focus group discussions illustrated many ways in which culture intersects with attitudinal formation, and how each process shapes, and/or is shaped by, the other. Participants differed from one another in terms of ethnicity, age and education, but most of them recalled a number of interactions with marine animals both here and abroad. Many of these marine related activities played a prominent part in the women’s childhood, especially as social activities-be it going to the beach, fishing and eating fish, or keeping fish as pets. The cultural and place-based context of their lives appeared to play a large and differentiated role in marine related practices, such as fishkeeping and aquaria visitation. This context was linked to knowledge of the marine environment: most knew more about the marine environment of their childhood (in another place for most of them) than about that of Southern California. Overall knowledge about animals in general and marine wildlife specifically was uneven, and to a large extent derived from traditional and even sometimes seemingly gendered practices. Attitudes toward marine wildlife were similar to those expressed about animals in general, with anthropocentric and to a lesser extent biocentric attitudes expressed. In two groups (the African American and Filipina groups) justifications for particular attitudes were based (in very contrasting ways) on the rights of humans, and not unrelatedly, to the defense of their own sociocultural practices. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 266 In the interviews with MAOO managers, culture was also described as an important component of attitudes, but this did not emerge until the end. Indeed concern about cultural diversity was not reflected in their own demographic composition nor did interviewees have a clear idea about the ethnicity of their public, apart from the mix of public school children that visit them on school field trips. In fact, these children were the principal subgroup to which MAOO directed their outreach. Neither did culture nor place emerge as an eminent issue although managers reported both knowledge of and concerns about deleterious impacts of particular human activities. Tidepool collecting was the only practice that was linked to culture or ethnicity in some (indirect) fashion. Instead participants explained most harmful practices as resulting from universals of human experience such as economic desperation, cruelty, ignorance or neglect. Culture was discussed as a problem by the more science-based MAOO managers who were frustrated by the popular rise in concerns for the protection and rescue of animals, such as whales and sea lions. They characterized this view as distanced from a realistic assessment of nature, and tied it to a distinctly white and urban culture of privilege. In sum, focus groups showed how knowledge and practices fit in with culture, while science-based MAOOs denied it— although clear gaps were exemplified in that harmful practices have continued (if not increased in some instances), and that the focus group participants’ knowledge was culturally defined. While focus group participants showed mostly anthropocentric views, some important biocentric views emerged, and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 267 in some cases, these views were supportive of animal rights beyond those of humans. However this position was (not that strong and) unevenly distributed across people, depending on their position in the contest for cultural survival. That such a contest exists did not occur to science-based MAOO managers, instead they blamed human nature and economic factors, hence erasing cultural and place-based difference. Their denial was only broken when confronted with public criticisms that contradicts their own scientific views, and which they characterized as stemming from the culture of white and urban privilege. 7.2.2 CULTURE PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE FORMATION OF ATTITUDES TOWARD MARINE ANIMALS What are some of the more specific ways in which culture plays a role in the formation of attitudes toward marine animals. In my analysis of focus group discussions (Chapter Five) I argued that participants had experienced a distancing from animals, due to life course and/or migration, and that they were less familiar with the local marine environment. For instance, it seemed that they had not extended the knowledge of marine animals that they had (from their country of origin for instance) to local circumstances in Los Angeles, at least because this knowledge had become less socially relevant. One example of this was the practice of fishing, with which some of them were familiar, but not in local waters. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 268 But the women had also experienced a rapprochement to companion animals and, to some extent surprisingly, to mainstream environmentalist, animal welfare and animal rights ideas. Clearly, the effort to assimilate and Americanize was linked to these popular ideas as part and parcel of what it means to getting adjusted to life in mainstream U.S. Also all groups showed a high level of interest in animals and in how to relate to them, and this was at times magnified by a desire to teach the ‘right’ way of treating animals (and of becoming American). By entering a new culture, participants reported feeling a new opportunity to reflect on their place-based practices, voice questions and sometimes outrage. In Chapter Six I describe how MAOO managers did not consider (traditional) cultures as issues to pursue through outreach or programming. While they had all witnessed clear and numerous examples of harmful human impacts such as tidepool collecting and showed concerns about these, they felt powerless to take action and dismissed incidents to universals of human behavior, to learn about marine animals or simply survive. This was made worse by the fact that so far no system is in place (or has been in place long enough and is widespread enough) to assess harm in a scientific manner, thus no action is justified. Despite the immediate harm done to marine animals and their habitats, some science based MAOO managers were more disturbed by the bad press they got from the public and animal rights organizations. They have ‘good’ cause for this concern: this Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 269 sentiment is growing (including perhaps among immigrants), it fundamentally discounts their profession and understanding of wildlife management, and is powerful enough to generate laws that are near impossible for them to enforce (because they violate wildlife management practice and/or are too expensive to enforce). In addition, attacks have sometimes exacted a personal toll on their personal reputation leading to demoralization. Here, both science- and non science-based MAOO managers clarified another process of marginalization, namely stigmatization in the name of animal related practices they found abhorrent (letting animals die), wasteful (rescuing animals that are going to die soon ‘anyway’), or ridiculous (burning incense next to a beached whale). In both the anti-animal rights (scientists) and the anti-bureaucratic (non scientists) stances, white privilege was blamed by MAOO managers. The anti-animal rights stance also blamed urban culture and ignorance, while the anti-bureaucratic stance was most critical of the lack of good-will they perceived on the part of wildlife managers, a perception based on both past and current performances. There were instances on both sides where efforts were made to reach minority children, and in the animal rights oriented organizations, this was done precisely because disenfranchisement was understood as making it more difficult for people to care about the lives of remote others (marine animals). But perhaps also, there was a conscious understanding of how the sympathies of disenfranchised people (especially minority children) could be turned around by pointing to a common cause specifically. This strategic understanding of disenfranchisement and how it can be ‘used’ to re Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 270 orient attitudes was also present in the other camp, where youth groups were lent fishing gear, taken to piers, and taught how to fish. This shows how, in either cases, marginalized groups can become pawns in a game they may not be aware of. In sum, the culture of the women in the focus groups had shaped their attitudes, and processes from acculturation to resistance were reshaping them, through cultural relativism for instance, on the one hand. On the other, MAOO managers-especially science-trained managers— , did not consider culture to be a ‘problem’ or at least one that merited their attention beyond the teaching of science to the next generation. Yet when the discussions veered toward the demands made by animal rights activists, pro science managers then recognized the value in blaming these views on (white, urban, privileged) culture, even if it was their own. There were (limited) examples in both science and non science MAOOs of outreach to an ethnic minority, in order to ‘win them over.’ My point is not to ask whether this is morally right or wrong, and my interpretation may well exaggerate the intent of these managers’ efforts, after all I am trying to identify processes, not culprits. Instead, I aim to demonstrate how a subtle understanding of disenfranchisement is already present. Not only is culture an important component of attitudes toward marine animals, but MAOO managers on both sides know it to be, and use it (in some instance) to try and reshape attitudes. Such an understanding highlights the myriad of ways in which culture and attitudes are related, and especially how they are employed in various Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 271 contests for legitimacy. Several processes related to identity formation in particular appeared in the discussions. 7.2.3 SPECIFIC PROCESSES ENHANCE THE INFLUENCE OF CULTURE In the complexity of attitudes lies our freedom; in their patterning, our dignity. (Eiser, 1994, 243) Marine animals evoke a range of attitudes in us, from utilitarianism (indiscriminately catching fish, dolphins and turtles in gillnets) to animal rightism (returning a captive whale to its pod in Iceland). These attitudes tire the expression of ideas, knowledge and beliefs of wide origins. They also result from our experiences and histories as individuals and as members of different ethnic and cultural groups, within pluralistic or homogenous societies. Such processes of identity formation have a differentiated impact on attitudes, including attitudes toward marine animals. First, and as focus groups showed, knowledge is place-based and socially constructed. Knowledge about marine animals can be framed and presented in different medium (in aquaria or in folktales), experienced with varying results (discovered or verified through interactions with animals, or when a bad animal-related omen comes through), and/or is the stepchild of hegemonic contests (science over traditional/supernatural beliefs). But a person’s interpretation of and ascription to a certain system of knowledge is also contextual and dependent on his or her position within a strategic Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 272 contest for cultural dominance (in Americanization for instance). Despite both a distancing and rapprochement, the focus groups showed how assimilation and acculturation had meant something different for the women in each groups, and how this had shaped their ways of making sense of new (Western for instance) knowledge. The women also demonstrated their awareness that humans define animals on the basis of their own socio-cultural contexts, and that this changes with place. For some, the history of oppression had meant that they more significantly extended the rights and privileges of other cultural groups on the basis of cultural relativism, while projecting concerns for animals on the basis of a similar anti-racist stance at the same time. Thus these discussions made clear how attitudes can be reinterpreted, in order to fit in a different predominant knowledge and/or attitudinal system while continuing to support the ‘old’ (and highly stigmatized) practices (such as the Filipina women who explained that the ‘Filipina way’— eating dogs— was a more ecological practice). Adherence to particular attitudes was also the result of cultural survival (because practices symbolize resistance to oppression), and end up supporting cultural relativism whereby all culturally related practices are legitimized no matter their acknowledged cruelty. This research has highlighted processes of identity formation that involve both adjustment and resistance, in the form of cultural relativism for instance. By understanding how these place-based processes intervene in the formation of attitudes toward marine animals, I unpack some of the complexity of attitudes, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 273 explain the persistence of contradictions in attitudes, and clarify the relationship between knowledge and attitudes. 7.2.4 SOME OF THESE PROCESSES ARE PLACE-BASED Place is an important part of the process of identity formation that shapes attitudes. For one thing, and as the discussions suggested, the knowledge and practices people encounter in childhood have an enduring influence in how they construct new lives and new attitudes later and/or elsewhere. Also, the women described how the social context of practices such as fishing (by which their attitudes were shaped) had been meaningful. Considering that this context has probably changed quite a bit since arriving in Los Angeles, it is little wonder that some of them felt disconnected from local marine animals. Nevertheless, they demonstrated a high level of interest in animal related matters and were clearly receptive to new ways of understanding marine animals here. For some, this concern was even magnified by a strong desire to teach their children the ‘proper’ way of treating animals— as defined by U.S. society. The women had also become closer to some animals and described being more sensitive to animal pain and needs. Some of them said that they were more vocal about animal welfare/rights issues on an individual basis since living here. Moreover a new life here had provided them a fresh opportunity to, on the one hand, reflect about their own cultural practices and, on the other hand, voice outrage at cruel practices both here and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 274 at home.1 Finally, the urban context brings with it not only rural/urban differences in interactions with animals, but also a different socio-cultural context in which people shape and reshape their attitudes. In Los Angeles (and in a growing number of coastal cities) this context is extremely diverse. Such diversity in itself is significant for attitudes because it can potentially both intensify and provide safety for a broader range of cultural practices and attitudes, with varying repercussions for stigmatization. Meanwhile MAOOs are at a loss on how to react to this diversity, and tend to dismiss both culture and the place-based processes that marginalize or subsume difference, including their own representation of nature and animals within a context that is dominated by science for instance. This is in part because they assume that they would have to react differently to each and every culture in order to be culturally sensitive, when an understanding of the place-based processes by which people become more or less empowered would go a long way to foster effective (and mutual) communication. 7.3 IMPLICATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH This research shows how culture can play an important role in the formation of attitudes toward marine animals. In particular I have illustrated how cultural identity (and relatedly diversity) initiates specific processes, and how these processes are place- based. There are some important implications to these findings, such as being able to This important moment in turn gives animal professionals a chance to disseminate scientific or other information (adding to a sometimes rich cultural knowledge) to a public that is particularly receptive. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 275 answer why people are willing to endure stigmatization that can result from their non- mainstream practices and attitudes. Animal geographers have argued that racialization occurs on the basis of animal related practices. As shown by this research, not only does racialization indeed occur in such a manner, but attitudes are created and re-created by cultural repositionings in response to various forms of marginalization. By acknowledging that racialization is performed in this manner and that cultural relativism, for instance, is a response to oppression, we can go a long way to more equitably help people negotiate their rights as members of simultaneous groups, while being aware of and responsive to animals as sentient beings. But this research can also help us recognize how marginalization makes people more critical of authority and dominant interpretations. In Western society because the interpretation of animals is dominated by science, science is necessarily involved in the struggle for cultural dominance. I was struck by how much both the women in the focus groups and the MAOO managers were aware of the social construction of animals. My surprise stemmed in part by the fact that the research on attitudes toward animals pays scant attention to cultural factors. Based on this work, I argue that the research on attitudes toward animals must reevaluate the ways in which it privileges science (in questions about knowledge for Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 276 instance), and reconsider the role of science as a pivotal vehicle of cultural dominance in the context of identity formation. Science indeed has redefined animals in modem times. As anthropologist Davis writes (1997): Rather than a simple reflection of popular taste or fascination, nature is often deployed as part of a definition of the world, as a way to convince ourselves and others of the rightness and inevitability of the world as known [...] It is invoked to justify family structures, sexual orderings, and racial and imperial hierarchies. (31) and, ... nature appreciation [fits] with ‘Americanization’ campaigns and efforts to model a hierarchical social order. The right sort of person, as advocated by nature educators, [is] an English-speaking, self controlled, property-respecting, refined middle-class citizen. (32) While I am not disputing the knowledge that science brings us about animals, science has a socio-cultural baggage that should not be ignored by attitudes research. The focus group participants were women of little economic means, uneven English language skills and with experiences that are severely restrained within inner city confines, yet they well understood the contradictions in knowledge and practices relating to animals in the U.S. Some expressed well-deserved skepticism about American attitudes toward animals, including the fact that some pets receive far better treatment than humans. It is not hard to imagine how this may make them more reluctant to absorb American views, or even scientific viewpoints on animals (and the laws based on them), especially when these are ‘passed o ff as the only truth worth mentioning. It is not hard to anticipate that instead, people like these women will Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 277 defend their cultural practices even when controversial or illegal, and some of them did just that. In the MAOOs, where marginalization begins with nearly entirely white staff and volunteers, and a unitary language (English and ‘sheltered English’) and philosophy (conservation), socio-cultural factors are likely to interfere with learning about marine animals. While the women in the focus groups showed a high level of interest in animals, the ‘sheltered English’ that MAOOs use may not satisfy their interest or provide them relevant information— such as about the toxicity of some fish they catch and eat. And as the discussions showed, they need more information, not just about rules but also about how practices, such as poaching, fit in the greater world. To not translate and wait for English literacy may be too late, considering the rate of change in local tidepools for instance. As a result, people are likely to feel left out or think that concerns (about habitat destruction for example) are not ‘their’ issues. More problematic is the question about how science education can in some meaningful fashion provide the social context that helps people learn about animals and the natural environment, something which the animal rights movement has perhaps been more successful in doing. Only by addressing these concerns, will we help stop harmful practices toward marine animals. 7.4 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH From this work, I derive several recommendations for the research on attitudes toward animals and for animal geography. First this research shows that culture and attitudes Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 278 are related, and that a focus on cultural diversity can go a long way to clarify some of the contradictions in people’s attitudes. Thus I recommend that more work be done (1) to highlight culture as a place-based process that can bring on changes in attitudes; (2) to focus on the attitudes of particular population (including mainstream and/or MAOO attitudes) whose attitudes toward animals are being challenged; and (3) to reconceptualize the role of knowledge in establishing cultural dominance (including in attitudinal research’s assumptions about what consists in animal-related knowledge). It would be particularly useful to relate cultural differentials in the appeal of science, to attitudes toward animals. Most of all, attitudinal research needs to consider how disenfranchisement operates in making some attitudes and practices more meaningful and thus entrenched (at least symbolically). I believe that these recommendations require that more qualitative approaches be introduced, to inform attitudinal surveys for instance. Indeed, as I have shown, both focus groups and interviews generate more sensitive means to inform the explanation of attitudes, particularly how socio-cultural identity formation powerfully intervenes in shaping them. The same holds true for animal geography which has not benefitted from a lengthy accumulation of systematic data to substantiate theoretical advances. Qualitative approaches can provide such information while at the same time advancing explanation. Thus, I recommend greater methodological experimentation based on a grounded conceptual framework and on the understanding of culture (for instance) as a place-based process. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 7 9 As this work partly shows, place is indeed critical in defining attitudes, knowledge and practices related to animals (including beliefs about where animals belong— physically and ontologically). I believe that animal geography and its focus on place can push the understanding of racialization further by more critically examining the interrelationship between attitudes toward animals, cultural contest, and white privilege. Indeed as this research shows, privilege dominates in different ways the philosophies, criticisms and concerns of MAOOs. Being that we as animal geographers are privileged, white (so far) and hold particular political convictions about animals (which we acknowledge play a role in our research), I believe that such an effort is particularly relevant and necessary. 7.5 SUMMARY The relationship between cultural diversity and attitudes toward marine animals was examined in this dissertation on the basis of an understanding of culture as a place- based process, and a focus of the local level where attitudes are socio-culturally mediated (between individual and global levels). This research employed more qualitative approaches than standard attitudes research to more directly arrive at some explanation for attitudes. Such explanation was premised on recent research in animal geography, that highlights the role of identity formation and disenfranchisement in defining how animals are considered. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 280 In a first part, focus groups with inner city low income women of different ethnicities (African American, Latina, Chicana, Chinese, Filipina) were organized in Los Angeles, to identify the spectrum of behaviors and attitudes toward animals, and the dimensions of urban diversity (such as culture, class, socio-demographics, and ethico- political stances) which may be related to marine animals. In a second part, interviews were conducted with managers of local marine animal oriented organizations to clarify how they have positioned themselves vis-a-vis cultural factors and difference. Analysis showed that culture plays an important role in the formation of attitudes toward marine animals. Specific processes of identity formation emerged, relating to oppression but also privilege, and were expressed through various cultural contests. Science was key in this struggle for dominance as was cultural relativism. Also, these processes were highly dependent on place (in terms of defining the context of culture, cultural diversity and knowledge). The research exemplifies how more explanatory understandings of attitudes may be provided, demonstrates the importance of considering culture in the process of attitude formation, and helps to explain the persistence of non mainstream practices and attitudes, even when these practices contradict new experiences, are socially unacceptable or illegal. Some of the novel aspects of this work included a focus on the attitudes of inner city ethnically diverse women, managers of a range of MAOOs, and marine animals. The research was also carried out through focus groups and interviews, two approaches rarely used in attitudes toward animals research. And the conceptual framework was significant in its Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 281 distinct geographic emphasis on place, an emphasis that helps integrate the mediating processes involved between culture and attitudes. This research enriches the understanding of place and its importance to the construction of identity, as well as contribute to a new understanding of human-marine animal relations, by identifying cultural and thus place-based factors that impact attitudes. More broadly, this research points to how we must learn (perhaps from these women) the ways in which our own practices and attitudes are socially constructed and legitimized. This is particularly important: not only did these women’s environment change but the marine environment here has changed in just decades due to human practices and activities. New practices and attitudes toward marine animals are required across the board. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 282 REFERENCES CITED Adams, Carol J., and Josephine Donovan, eds. 1995. Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations. Durham: Duke University Press. Agar, Michael, and James MacDonald. 1995. Focus Groups and Ethnography. Human Organization 54: 78-86. Almaguer, Tomas. 1994. Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins o f White Supremacy in California. Los Angeles: University of California, Berkeley. Alps, Bernardo. 1999. Interview by author. Santa Monica, Calif., 31 August. Anderson, Kay. 1997. A W alk on the Wild Side: A Critical Geography of Domestication. Progress in Human Geography 21: 463-485. . 1998. Animals, Geography, and the City: Notes on Inclusions and Exclusions. In Animal Geographies: Place, Politics, and Identity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands, edited by Jennifer Wolch, and Jody Emel. New York: Verso Press. Arluke, Arnold, and Clinton R. Sanders. 1996. Regarding Animals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Armour, Jody David. 1997. Negrophobia and Reasonable Racism: The Hidden Costs o f Being Black in America. New York: New York University Press. Axelrod, Herbert R., and Leonard P. Schultz. 1983. Handbook o f Tropical Aquarium Fishes. New Jersey: TFH. Babbie, Earl. 1994. The Practice o f Social Research. 7th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth. Baker, Steve. 1993. Picturing the Beast: Animals, Identity and Representation. New York: Manchester University Press. Bailey, Eric. 1999. The North Coast Abalone Ward. Los Angeles Times, September 27, A3 and A18. Bath, Alistair J. 1991. Public Attitudes in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho Toward Wolf Restoration in Yellowstone National Park. In Transactions o f the 56th North American Wildlands & Natural Resources Conference, vol. 56: 91-5. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 283 Basch, Charles E. 1987. Focus Group Interview: an Underutilized Research Technique for Improving Theory and Practice in Health Education. Health Education Quarterly 14: 411-448. Baxter, Jamie, and John Eyles. 1997. Evaluating Qualitative Research in Social Geography: Establishing ‘Rigour’ in Interview Analysis. Transactions o f the Institute o f British Geographers 22: 505-525. Bennett, Charles F. 1960. Cultural Animal Geography: an Inviting Field of Research. Professional Geographer 12: 12-14. . 1961. Animal Geography in Geography Textbooks: A Critical Analysis. Professional Geographer 13: 13-16. Billson, Janet Mancini. 1994. Conducting Focus Groups: a Manual for Sociologists on the Use of Focus Groups as a Tool in Social and Market Research. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. Birke, Linda. 1995. Exploring the Boundaries: Feminism, Animals, and Science. In Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations, edited by Carol J. Adams, and Josephine Donovan. Durham: Duke University Press. Botkin, D. B. 1990. Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Oxford University Press. Brechin, Steven, and Willett Kempton. 1994. Global Environmentalism: A Challenge to the Postmaterialist Thesis? Social Science Quarterly 75: 245-269. Breckler, Steven J. 1984. Empirical Validation of Affect, Behavior, and Cognition as Distinct Components of Attitude. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology 47: 1191-1205. Bright, Alan D., and Michael J. Manfredo. 1986. A Conceptual Model of Attitudes Toward Natural Resources Issues: A Case o f Wolf Reintroduction. Human Dimensions o f Wildlife I: 1-21. . 1995. The Quality of Attitudinal Information Regarding Natural Resource Issues: The Role of Attitude-Strength, Importance, and Information. Society and Natural Resources 8: 399-414. Brislin, Richard. 1981. Cross-Cultural Encounters: Face-to-Face Interactions. New York: Pergamon. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 284 . 1993. Understanding Culture’ s Influence on Behavior. San Diego: Harcourt. Branson, Mark W., and Brent S. Steel. 1996. Sources of Variation in Attitudes and Beliefs about Federal Rangeland Management. Journal o f Range Management 49: 69-75. Biiky, Bela. 1974. Semiotical Approaches to the Problem of Territorial Differences in Attitude. In A Semiotic Landscape: Proceedings o f the First Congress o f the International Association for Semiotic Studies, edited by Seymour Chatman, Umberto Eco, and Jean-Marie Klinkenberg. New York: Mouton. Burgess, Jacquelin. 1996. Focusing on Fear: the Use of Focus Groups in a Project for the Community Forest Unit, Countryside Commission. Area 28: 130-135. Burgess, Jacquelin, M. Limb, and C.M. Harrison. 1988a. Exploring Environmental Values through the Medium of Small Groups: Theory and Practice. Environment and Planning A 20: 309-326. . 1988b. Exploring Environmental Values through the Medium of Small Groups: Illustrations of a Focus Group at Work. Environment and Planning A 20: 457-476. Burghardt, Gordon M. 1985. Animal Awareness: Current Perceptions and Historical Perspective. American Psychologist 40: 905-919. Bustillo, Miguel. 2000. Cultures Clash over Sales of Live Turtles, Frogs. Los Angeles Times, A22. January 23. Cardenas, Jose. 1999. For Latinos, Charity truly Does Begin at Home. Los Angeles Times, E l. April 6. Collins, Patricia Hill. 1998. Fighting Words: Black Women and the Search fo r Justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Cordaro, Joe. 1999. Interview by author. Long Beach, Calif., 23 July. Cunningham, Paul F. 1995. Topics Awaiting Study: Investigable Questions on Animal Issues. Society and Animals 3: 89-110. Czech, Brian, Paul R. Krausman, and Rena Borkhataria. 1998. Social Construction, Political Power, and the Allocation of Benefits to Endangered Species. Conservation Biology 12: 1103-1112. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 285 Davis, Susan G. 1997. Spectacular Nature: Corporate Culture and the Sea World Experience. Berkeley: University of California Press, Berkeley. DeBus, Bemi. July 1999. A Brief History of the Founding of the American Cetacean Society, [http://www.acson.org/spy9901.html]. Decker, Daniel J., and Thomas A. Gavin. 1987. Public Attitudes toward a Suburban Deer Herd. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15: 173-180. Decker, Daniel J., and Gary R. Goff, eds. 1987. Valuing Wildlife: Economic and Social Perspectives. Boulder: Westview Press. Decker, Daniel J., Roland E. Shanks, Larry A. Nielsen, and Gary R. Parsons. 1991. Ethical and Scientific Judgements in Management: Beware of Blurred Distinctions. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19: 523-527. Degler, Carl N. 1991. In Search o f Human Nature: the Decline and Revival o f Darwinism in American Social Thought. New York: Oxford University Press. DeLuca, Kevin. 1998. In the Shadow of Whiteness: the Consequences of Constructions of Nature in Environmental Politics. In Whiteness: The Communication of Social Identity, edited by Thomas K. Nakayama, and Judith N. Martin. Thousand Oaks: Sage Press. Doise, Willem. 1984. Social Representations, Inter-Group Experiments and Levels of Analysis. In Social Representations, edited by Robert M. Farr, and Serge Moscovici. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Dolin, Eric Jay. 1988. Black Americans’ Attitudes toward Wildlife. Journal o f Environmental Education 20: 17-21. Driscoll, Janis Wiley. 1987. Attitudes Toward Animal Use. Anthrozods 5: 32-39. . 1995. Attitudes toward Animals: Species Ratings. Society and Animals 3: 139- 150. Driver, Felix, and Gillian Rose. 1992. Introduction: Towards New Histories of Geographical Knowledge. In Nature and Science: Essays in the History o f Geographical Knowledge. Historical Geography Research Series. Institute of British Geographers 28: 1-7. Eagly, Alice H., and Shelly Chaiken. 1993. The Psychology o f Attitudes. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 286 Edgell, Michael C.R., and David E. Nowell. 1989. The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: Wildlife and Environmental Beliefs in British Columbia. Society and Natural Resources 2: 285-296. Ehrenfeld, David. 1991. Conservation and Animal Rights. Conservation Biology 5: 1-3. Eiser, J. Richard. 1994. Attitudes, Chaos and the Connectionist Mind. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. Elder, Glen, Jennifer Wolch, and Jody Emel. 1998a. Race, Place, and the Bounds of Humanity. Society and Animals 6: 183-202. . 1998b. Le Pratique Sauvage: Race, Place, and the Human-Animal Divide. In Animal Geographies: Place, Politics, and Identity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands, edited by Jennifer Wolch and Jody Emel. New York: Verso Press. Emel, Jody, and Jennifer Wolch. 1998. Witnessing the Animal Moment. In Animal Geographies: Place, Politics, and Identity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands. edited by Jennifer Wolch, and Jody Emel. New York: Verso Press. Evans, Clay. 1990. Talk of Curbs on Gill Nets Roils Waters. Los Angeles Times. May 17, B3. Evemden, Neil. 1992. The Social Creation o f Nature. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Ewert, Alan W., Deborah J. Chavez, and Arthur W. Magill, eds. 1993. Culture, Conflict, and Communication in the Wildland-Urban Interface. Boulder: Westview Press. Farr, Robert M., and Serge Moscovici, eds. 1984. Social Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fears, Darryl. 1999. United Way Says County Lags in Giving Despite Wealth. Los Angeles Times. May 19, B l. Ferry, Luc. 1995. The New Ecological Order. Trans, by Carol Volk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fischer, Michael M. J. 1986. Ethnicity and the Post-Modern Arts of Memory. In Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics o f Ethnography, edited by James Clifford and George E. Marcus. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 287 Fletcher, James E., and Michael King. 1987. Attitudes Concerning the Use o f Fish and Wildlife Resources in the State o f California. California State University, Chico: The Survey Research Center University Foundation. Fortner, Rosanne W., and Anne E. Lyon. 1985. Effects of a Cousteau Television Special on Viewer Knowledge and Attitudes. Journal o f Environmental Education 16: 12-20. Frankenberg, Ruth. 1993. White Women, Race Matters: the Social Construction o f Whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Friedman, Jonathan. 1994. Cultural Identity and Global Process. London: Sage Press. Fulton, David C., Michael Manfredo, and James Lipscomb. 1996. Wildlife Value Orientations: A Conceptual and Measurement Approach. Human Dimensions o f Wildlife 1: 24-47. Fumham, A., and C. Heyes. 1993. Psychology Students’ Beliefs about Animals and Animal Experimentation. Personality and Individual Differences 1: 1-10. George, Wilma. [1962] 1973. Animal Geography. London: Heinemann. Gergen, Kenneth. 1992. Toward a Postmodern Psychology. In Psychology and Postmodernism, edited by Steinar Kvale. Newbury Park: Sage Press. Gill, R. Bruce. 1996. The Wildlife Professional subculture: The case of the Crazy Aunt. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1 : 60-69. Girard, G. Tanner, Brian D. Anderson, and Taylor A. De Laney. 1993. Managing Conflicts with Animal Activists: White-tailed Deer and Illinois Nature Preserve. Natural Areas Journal 13: 10-17. Glass, Ronald J., Thomas A. More, and Thomas H. Stevens. 1990. Public Attitudes, Politics and Extramarket Values for Reintroduced Wildlife: Examples from New England. Transactions o f the 55th North American Wildlands & Natural Resources Conference, vol. 55: 548-557. Golden, Marty. 1999. Interview by author. Long Beach, Calif., 23 July. Goldman, Alfred E., and Susan Schwartz McDonald. 1987. The Group Depth Interview: Principles and Practice. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Goss, Jon. 1996a. Introduction to Focus Groups. Area 28: 113-114. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 8 8 . 1996b. Focus Groups as Alternative Research Practice: Experience with Transmigrants in Indonesia. Area 28: 115-123. Gregory, Paul. 1999. Interview by author. Long Beach, Calif., 12 September. Guither, Harold D. 1998. Animal Rights: History and Scope o f a Radical Social Movement. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Gullo, Andrea, Unna Lassiter, and Jennifer Wolch. 1998. The Cougar’s Tale. In Animal Geographies: Place, Politics, and Identity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands, edited by Jennifer Wolch, and Jody Emel. New York: Verso Press. Hafkin, Nancy J., and Edna G. Bay, eds. 1976. Women in Africa: Studies in Social and Economic Change. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Hanson, Susan. 1999. Isms and Shisms: Healing the Rift between the Nature-Society and Space-Society Traditions in Human Geography. The Annals o f the Association o f American Geographers 89: 133-143. Haraway, Donna. 1988. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies 14: 575-599. . 1989. Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World o f Modem Science. New York: Routledge. Harding, Sandra. 1987. Feminism and Methodology: Social Science Issues. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Hartshome, Richard. 1939. The Nature o f Geography. Lancaster: Association of American Geographers. Herzog, Harold A., Nancy S. Betchart, and Robert B. Pittman. 1991. Gender, Sex Role Orientation, and Attitudes Toward Animals. Anthrozods 4: 184-191. Heyning, John E. 1994. Masters o f the Ocean Realm: Whales, Dolphins, Porpoises. Seattle: University of Washington Press. . 1999. Interview by author. Los Angeles, Calif., 24 August. Holbrook, Beverley. 1996. Shopping Around: Focus Groups Research in North London. Area 28: 136-142. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 289 Holland, Dorothy, and Naomi Quinn. 1987. Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Howard, Len. 1953. Birds as Individuals. Garden City: Doubleday. Hugill, Peter J., and Kenneth E. Foote. 1994. Preface: Re-reading Cultural Geography. In Re-reading Cultural Geography, edited by Kenneth E. Foote, et al. Austin: University of Texas. Jackson, Peter and Jan Penrose, eds. 1994. Constructions o f Race, Place and Nation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Jacobson, Susan K., and Mallory D. McDuff. 1997. Training Idiot Savants: The Lack of Human Dimensions in Conservation Biology. Conservation Biology 12: 263- 267. Jarrett, R. L. 1993. Focus Group Interviewing with Low-income, Minority Populations: A Research Experience. In Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State o f the Art, edited by David L. Morgan. Newbury Park: Sage Press. Jaspars Jos, and Colin Fraser. 1984. Attitudes and Social Representations. In Social Representations, edited by Robert M. Farr, and Serge Moscovici. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jencks, Charles. 1996. Hetero-Architecture and the L.A. School. In The City: Los Angeles and Urban Theory at the End o f the Twentieth Century, edited by Allen J. Scott, and Edward W. Soja. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Johnston, Ronald J. 1991. Geography and Geographers: Anglo-American Human Geography since 1945, 4th Edition. New York: Edward Arnold. Kaltenbom, Bj0m P., Tore Bjerke, and Joar Vittersp. 1999. Attitudes toward Large Carnivores among Sheep Farmers, Wildlife Managers, and Research Biologists in Norway. Human Dimensions o f Wildlife 4: 57-73. Kellert, Stephen R. 1979. Public Attitudes Toward Critical Wildlife and Natural Habitat Issues Phase I. N.p.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. . 1980. Contemporary Values of Wildlife in American Society. In Wildlife Values, edited by William Shaw, and Ervin Zube. Boulder: Center for Assessment of Noncommodity Natural Resource Values. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 290 . 1985. Public Perceptions of Predators, Particularly the Wolf and Coyote. Conservation Biology 31: 167-189. . 1991a. Japanese Perceptions of Wildlife. Conservation Biology 5: 297-308. . 1991b. Public Views of Wolf Restoration in Michigan. Transactions o f the 56th North American Wildlands & Natural Resources Conference, vol. 56: 152-161. . 1993a. Attitudes, Knowledge, and Behavior Toward Wildlife Among the Industrial Superpowers: United States, Japan, and Germany. Journal o f Social Issues 49: 53-69. . 1993b. The Biological Basis for Human Values of Nature. In The Biophilia Hypothesis, edited by Stephen R. Kellert, and Edward O. Wilson. Covelo: Island Press. . 1999. American Perceptions o f Marine Mammals and their Management. Washington, D.C.: The Humane Society of the United States. Kellert, Stephen R., and Joyce K. Berry. 1980. Knowledge, Affection, and Basic Attitudes Towards Animals in American Society, Phase III. N.p.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Kellert, Stephen R., James P. Gibbs, and Timothy J. Wohlgenant. 1995. Canadian Perceptions of Commercial Fisheries Management and Marine Mammal Conservation in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Anthrozods 8: 20-30. Kempton, Willett, James S. Boster, and Jennifer A. Hartley. 1995. Environmental Values in American Culture. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Kitzinger, Jenny 1994. The Methodology of Focus Groups: The Importance of Interaction Between Research Participants. Sociology o f Health and Illness 16: 103-121. Kvale, Steinar, ed. 1992. Psychology and Postmodernism. Newbury Park: Sage Press. Landes, Susan Sperling. 1984. Social Determinants of Attitudes toward Primates and Other Animals. Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. Latour, Bruno. 1993. We Have Never Been Modem. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Latour, Bruno. 1994. Pragmatogonies. American Behavioural Scientists 37: 791-808. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 291 Lawrence, Elizabeth Atwood. 1995. Cultural Perceptions of Differences between People and Animals: a Key to Understanding Human-Animal Relationships. Journal o f American Culture 18: 75-82. Lawrenz-Miller, Suzanne. 1999. Interview with author. San Pedro, Calif., 29 June. Leighly, John, ed. 1965. Land and Life: A Selection of the Writings o f Carl Ortwin Sauer. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Li, Wei. 1997. Spatial Transformation of an Urban Ethnic Community from Chinatown to Chinese Ethnoburb in Los Angeles. Dissertation. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Liverman, Diana M. 1999. Geography and the Global Environment. The Annals o f the Association o f American Geographers 89: 107-120. Lofland, John, and Lyn H. Lofland. 1995. Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. 3rd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth. Longhurst, Robyn. 1996. Refocusing Groups: Pregnant Women’s Geographical Experiences of Hamilton, New Zealand/Aotearoa. Area 28: 143-149. Lundy, A. L. “Scrap.” 1997. The California Abalone Industry: A Pictorial History. Flagstaff: Best. Lunt, Peter, and Sonia Livingstone. 1996. Rethinking the Focus Group in Media and Communications Research. Journal o f Communication 46: 79- 98. Lynch, Ann. 1999. Telephone interview with author. 14 September. Lynch, Barbara Deutsch. 1993. The Garden and the Sea: U.S. Latino Environmental Discourses and Mainstream Environmentalism. Social Problems 40: 108-124. May, Tim. 1997. Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process. 2d ed. Bristol: Open University. McEvoy, Arthur F. 1986. The Fisherman’ s Problem: Ecology and Law in the California Fisheries, 1850-1980. New York: Cambridge University Press. McHale, Tana. 1997a. Sport vs. Commercial Allocation Disputes in California. In California and the World Ocean’97 (Taking a Look at California’ s Ocean Resources: An Agenda for the Future), Conference Proceedings, Volume II, edited by Orville T. Magoon, et al. Reston: American Society of Civil Engineers. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 292 . 1997b. World Fisheries and California Fisheries Management. In California and the World Ocean ’ 97 (Taking a Look at California’ s Ocean Resources: An Agenda fo r the Future), Conference Proceedings, Volume I, edited by Orville T. Magoon, et al. Reston: American Society of Civil Engineers. Mclvor, Donald E., and Michael R. Conover. 1994. Perceptions of Farmers and Non- Farmers toward Management of Problem Wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22: 212-219. McKibben, Bill. 1990. The End o f Nature. London: Penguin Publishers. Merchant, Carolyn. 1989. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution. 1980. San Francisco: Harper Publishers. Michel, Suzanne. 1998. Golden Eagles and the Environmental Politics of Care. In Animal Geographies: Place, Politics, and Identity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands, edited by Jennifer Wolch, and Jody Emel. New York: Verso Press. Midgley, Mary. 1983. Animals and Why they Matter. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Minnis, Donna L., Robert H. Holsman, Lisa Grice, and R. Ben Payton. 1997. Focus Groups as a Human Dimensions Research Tool: Three Illustrations of their Use. Human Dimensions o f Wildlife 2: 40-49. Mohanty, Chandra Talpade, Ann Russo, and Lourdes Torres, eds. 1991. Third World Women and the Politics o f Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Mordi, Richard. 1987. Public Attitudes Toward Wildlife in Botswana. New Haven: Yale University Press. Morgan, David L., ed. 1993. Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State o f the Art. Newbury Park: Sage Press. Munson, Bruce H. 1994. Ecological Misconceptions. Journal o f Environmental Education 25: 30-34. Nelson, Candace, and Marta Tienda. 1985. The structuring of Hispanic Identity: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Ethnic and Racial Studies 8: 49-74. Noe, Francis P., and Rob Snow. 1989-90. Hispanic Cultural Influence on Environmental Concern. Journal o f Environmental Education 21: 27-34. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 293 Noske, Barbara. 1997. Beyond Boundaries: Humans and Animals. Buffalo: Black Rose Books. O’Barr, Jean. 1984. African Women in Politics. In African Women South o f the Sahara, edited by Margaret J. Hay and Sharon Stichter. New York: Longman. O’Brien, Cara. 1999. Interview by author. Los Angeles, Calif., 29 July. Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States from the 1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge Publishers. Oskamp, Stuart. 1991. Attitudes and Opinions, 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Ott, Jackie. 1999. Telephone interview with author. 14 September. Passariello, Phyllis. 1999. Me and My Totem: Cross-Cultural Attitudes Towards Animals. In Attitudes to Animals: Views in Animal Welfare, edited by Francine L. Dolins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peet, Richard. 1977. Radical Geography: Alternative Viewpoints on Contemporary Social Issues. Chicago: Maaroufa Press. Penland, Stephen. 1987. Attitudes of Urban Residents Toward Avian Species and Species’ Attributes. In Integrating Man and Nature in the Metropolitan Environment, edited by L. W. Adams, and D. L. Leedy. Tucson: National Institute of Urban Wildlife. 77-82. Philo, Chris. 1995. Animals, Geography and the City: Notes on Inclusions and Exclusions. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 13: 655-681. Philo, Chris, and Chris Wilbert. 2000. Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: An Introduction. In Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: New Geographies o f Human- Animal Relations, edited by Chris Philo, and Chris Wilbert, London: Routledge. Philo, Chris, and Jennifer Wolch, eds. 1998. Through the Geographical Looking Glass: Space, Place, and Society-Animal Relations. Society and Animals 6: 103- 117. Pifer, Linda, Kinya Shimizu, and Ralph Pifer. 1994. “Public Attitudes Toward Animal Research: Some International Comparisons.” Society and Animals 2: 95-113. Pinkerton, James P. 1997. Enviromanticism: the Poetry of Nature as Political Force. Foreign Affairs 76: 2-7. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 294 Plumwood, Val. 1993. Feminism and the Mastery o f Nature. New York: Routledge. Polkinghome, Donald E. 1992. Postmodern Epistemology of Practice. In Psychology and Postmodernism, edited by Steinar Kvale. Newbury Park: Sage Press. Pomeroy, Caroline. 1997. The Human Dimension: The Missing Link in California’s Fishery Management? In California and the World Ocean’ 97 (Taking a Look at California’ s Ocean Resources: An Agenda fo r the Future), Conference Proceedings, Volume /., edited by Orville T. Magoon et al. Reston: American Society of Civil Engineers. Price, Jennifer. 1999. Flight Maps: Adventures with Nature in Modem America. New York: Basic Books. Pulido, Laura. 1996. Environmentalism and Economic Justice: Two Chicano Struggles in the Southwest. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. . 2000. Rethinking Environmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban Development in Southern California. Annals o f the Association o f American Geographers 90: 12-40. Purdy, Ken G., and Daniel J. Decker. 1989. Applying Wildlife Values Information in Management: The Wildlife Attitudes and Values Scale. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17: 494-500. Reading, Richard P., Tim W. Clark, and S. Kellert. 1994. Attitudes and Knowledge of People Living in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Society and Natural Resources 1: 349-365. Regan, Tom. 1984. The Case fo r Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press. Resources Agency of California. 1997, March. California’ s Ocean Resources: An Agenda fo r the Future. Sacramento, CA. . 2000, January. Improving California’ s system o f Marine Managed Areas: Final Report o f the State. Interagency Marine Managed Areas Workgroup. Sacramento, CA. Responsive Management. 1998. Wildlife and the American Mind: Public Opinion and Attitudes toward Fish and Wildlife Management. Harrisonburg: n.p. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 295 Ries, Ed. 1997. Tales o f the Golden Years o f California Ocean Fishing 1900-1950. Los Angeles: Friends of the Los Angeles Maritime Museum and the Los Angeles Maritime Museum Research Society. Ritvo, Harriet. 1987. The Animal Estate: the English and Other Creatures in the Victorian Age. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Roberto, Pat. 1995. The Cat Rescue Movement vs. Wildlife Defenders. California Coast & Ocean 11: 31-40. Rosenau, Pauline Marie. 1992. Post-Modernism and the Social Sciences. New Jersey, Princeton University Press. Rossi, Ashley, and James B. Armstrong. 1999. Theory of Reasoned Action vs. Theory of Planned Behavior: Testing the Suitability and Sufficiency of a Popular Behavior Model Using Hunting Intentions. Human Dimensions o f Wildlife 4: 40-56. Sanchez, George J. 1993. Becoming Mexican American: Ethnicity, Culture, and Identity in Chicano Los Angeles, 1900-1945. New York, Oxford University Press. Sauer, Carl O. [1952] 1972. Seeds, Spades, Hearths and Herds: the Domestication of Animals and Foodstuffs. Cambridge: MTT. Schenk, Suzanne Ashley, et al. 1994. The Genesis and Correlates of Attitudes toward Pets. Anthrozods 7: 60-68. Schoch, Deborah. 1999. Bold Dream for America’s Wildernesses. Los Angeles Times, 13 September, A3. Serpell, James. 1986. In the Company o f Animals: A Study o f Human-Animal Relationships. New York: Blackwell Publishers. Shafer, Craig L. 1990. Nature Reserves: Island Theory and Conservation Practice. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute. Shaull, Sandra L., and James H. Gramann. 1998. The Effect of Cultural Assimilation on the Importance of Family-Related and Nature-Related Recreation among Hispanic Americans. Journal o f Leisure Research 30: 47-64. Shaw, William W. 1997. A Survey of Hunting Opponents. Wildlife Society Bulletin 5: 19-24. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 296 Sheppard, Judi Anne Caron. 1995. The Black-White Environmental Concern Gap: An Examination of Environmental Paradigms. Journal o f Environmental Education 26: 24-35. Shiva, Vandana. 1993. Monocultures o f the Mind. New Jersey: Zed Press. Shore, Bradd. 1996. Culture in Mind: Cognition, Culture, and the Problem o f Meaning. New York: Oxford University Press. Siemer, William F., Ben R. Peyton, and Daniel J. Witter. 1987. Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Animals: Implications for Conservation Education. Transactions o f the 52nd North American Wildlands & Natural Resources Conference, vol. 52: 460- 467. Singer, Peter. [1975] 1977. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics For Our Treatment o f Animals. New York: Avon. Soule, Michael E. 1995. The Social Siege of Nature. In Reinventing Nature? Responses to Postmodern Deconstruction, edited by Michael E. Soule, and Gary Lease. Covelo: Island Press. Soule, Michael E., and Gary Lease, eds. 1995. Reinventing Nature? Responses to Postmodern Deconstruction. Covelo: Island Press. Sperling, Susan. 1988. Animal Liberators: Research and Morality. Berkeley: University of California Press. Spiegel, Marjorie. 1988. The Dreaded Comparison. Denmark: Heretic Press. St-Yves, A., M. H. Freeston, C. Jacques, and C. Robitaille. 1990. Love of Animals and Interpersonal Affectionate Behavior. Psychological Reports 67: 1067-1075. Stanfield II, John H. 1993. Epistemological Considerations. In Race and Ethnicity in Research Methods, edited by John H. Stanfield E, and Rutledge M. Dennis. Newbury Park: Sage Press. State of California. 1997. California Coastal Access Guide, 5th ed., San Francisco: California Coastal Commission. Stevens, Thomas H., Thomas A. More, and Ronald Glass. 1994. Public Attitudes About Coyotes in New England. Society and Natural Resources 7: 57-66. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29 7 Stewart, David W., and Prem N. Shamdasani. 1990. Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. Newbury Park: Sage Press. Swenson, Jill D., William F. Griswold, and Pamela B. Kleiber. 1992. Focus Groups: Method of Inquiry/Intervention. Small Group Research 23: 459-474. Thomas, W. L., ed. 1956. Man’ s Role in Changing the Face o f the Earth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Thome, Lorraine. 1998. Kangaroos: The Non-Issue. Society and Animals 6: 167-181. Tourangeau, Roger, and Kenneth A. Rasinski. 1988. Cognitive Processes Underlying Context Effects in Attitude Measurement. Psychological Bulletin 103: 299-314. van den Hoonard, Will C. 1997. Working with Sensitizing Concepts: Analytical Field Research. Newbury Park: Sage Press. Vaughn, Sharon, Jeanne Shay Schumm, and Jane Sinagub. 1996. Focus Group Interviews in Education and Psychology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Press. Wagner, Frederic H. et al. 1995. Wildlife Policies in the U.S. National Parks. Covelo: Island Press. Wallerstein, Peter. 1999. Interview with author. Los Angeles: Calif. 25 August. Ward, Coleen. 1996. Acculturation. In Handbook o f Intercultural Training, 2d ed., edited by Dan Landis and Rabi S. Bhagat. Thousand Oaks: Sage Press Wells, Deborah L., and Peter G. Hepper. 1997. Pet Ownership and Adults’ Views on the Use of Animals. Society and Animals 5: 45-63. Weston, Rema Lee. 1991. Zoo Professionals: Their Attitudes, Opinions, and Demographics. Master Thesis. Fullerton: California State University, Fullerton. Whitley, Lynn. 1998. Cultural Diversity and Attitudes Toward Marine Wildlife. Master Thesis. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Wicker, Allan W. 1969. Attitude Versus Actions: The Relationship of Verbal and Overt Behavioral Responses to Attitude Objects. Journal o f Social Psychology 25: 41-78. Wolch, Jennifer. 1996. Zoopolis. Capitalism Nature Socialism 1: 21-48. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 298 Wolch, Jennifer, and Jody Emel, eds. 1998. Animal Geographies: Place, Politics, and Identity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands. New York: Verso Press. Wolch, Jennifer, Jodi Emel, Chris Wilbert, and Chris Philo (Forthcoming) Re- Animating Cultural Geography. Wolch, Jennifer, and Michael Dear. 1993. Malign Neglect: Homelessness in an American City. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Wolch, Jennifer, Lynn Gale, Unna Lassiter, and Andrea Gullo. 1996. Attitudes toward Wildlife in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. Los Angeles, CA: Southwest Parks and Monuments Association. Wolch, Jennifer, Unna Lassiter, and Tula Top. Forthcoming. Tracking Animal- Oriented Organizations in Southern California. International Urban Wildlife Conservation Conference Proceedings. University of Arizona, School of Renewable Natural Resources. Wolch, Jennifer, and Chris Philo, eds. 1998. Animals and Geography. Society and Animals 6:103-202. Wolch, Jennifer R., Kathleen West, and Thomas E. Gaines. 1995. Transspecies Urban Theory. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 13: 735-760. Woods , Michael. 2000. Fantastic Mr Fox? Representing Animals in the Hunting Debate. 183-217. In Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: New Geographies o f Human- Animal Relations, edited by Chris Philo and Chris Wilbert. New York: Routledge. Zeigler, Donald J., and Stanley D. Brunn. 1996. Focusing on Hurricane Andrew through the Eyes of the Victims. Area 28: 124-129. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDICES 2 9 9 Appendix A: Stephen Kellert’s Typology of Attitudes (1993,59) Term Definition Function Utilitarian Practical and material exploitation of nature Physical sustenance/security Naturalistic Satisfaction from direct experience/ contacts with nature Curiosity, outdoor skills, mental/physical development Ecologistic- Scientific Systematic study of structure, function, and relationship in nature Knowledge, understanding, observational skills Aesthetic Physical appeal and beauty of nature Inspiration, harmony, peace, security Symbolic Use of nature for metaphorical expression, language, expressive thought Communication, mental development Humanistic Strong affection, emotional attachment, “love” for nature Group bonding, sharing, cooperation, companionship Moralistic Strong affinity, spiritual reverence, ethical concern for nature Order and meaning in life, kinship and affectional ties Dominionistic Mastery, physical control, dominance of nature Mechanical skills, physical prowess, ability to subdue Negativistic Fear, aversion, alienation from nature Security, protection, safety Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 300 Appendix B: Basic Focus Group Participant Questionnaire Thank you for participating in this discussion on animals. Your opinions are of great help to us. Before we begin, please tell us: Overall, how well do you know the others who are in the room this evening? not at all?; somewhat; O R very well How old are you?_____________ What is the last school year/grade you completed? Grade; High School Degree; some college; College Degree (please tell us which_____________________ ) How long have you lived in Los Angeles?______________________ Where were you bom ? ______ __________________________________ Are you a member of an environmental or animal rights organization? yes;___ no Have you ever worked with animals? (Indicate all that apply) on a farm; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 301 in a stable; in a pet store; at a vet; in a park or zoo; in a slaughterhouse; Elsewhere? Please tell us where:__________________________ Have you ever owned a pet or raised animals? yes; no If so, what kind? a dog: a cat; a bird; a snake or a turtle; Any other? Tell us which: Thank you! Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 302 Appendix C: Focus Group Questions Opening Hi I’m Jennifer Wolch and, first, I want to welcome you and thank you for participating in this group discussion. We’re from USC and we asked different community leaders like (...) to help us set these kinds of meetings up. As you know, what we’d like to hear about are people’s different opinions about animals - both positive and negative, stories about animals, both good and bad - and how people relate to animals - for example, raising farm animals, fishing, hunting, keeping pets, animals in labs, insect collecting, or feeding wild animals like pigeons, ducks or squirrels. There are no right or wrong answers, and negative comments are as important as positive comments. Now, if you feel that you’ve never had experiences with animals, that’s fine too. W e’re not trying to put you on the spot or sell you anything. We’ll cover different topics and the discussion will be relaxed and fun. Unna is one of my students helping me. She gave you your name tags and questionnaires and will be taking notes when we start. Alec is our technician, he makes sure that the tape recorder is mnning. As you know, this is strictly confidential and your names will riot be used, but we don’t want to miss anything you’re saying. So we’re taping our discussion, but the tapes will be erased after we’re done. For the same reason, we ask that you talk one at a time, but we want this to be a conversation amongst all of us and not just talk to me. I don’t have any Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 303 answers! We brought some refreshments, please help yourself. After the meeting ends you’ll receive $25.00 as a thank you for participating. Any questions before we get started? Transition Now, tell us your name and where you are from, and how long you’ve been in the US and in LA. W ARM UP a. Did you hear in the news the story of the pet snake that escaped, then ate someone’s pet dog? Can someone recall that story? Here’s the article. It says: “Flossie Torgerson vowed Sunday to prevent a repeat o f the horror she witnessed on her patio the day before when a boa constrictor crushed her tiny chihuahua and swallowed it whole...” Was that just bad luck or is the owner of the snake responsible? Cue: What kinds of animals come to mind when you think about pets? Have any of you owned a pet or raised animals before? Has anyone here raised or kept an animal that might be considered strange even in LA, like crickets, ants, or some kind of odd fish. b. Now, you may have seen on TV that wild animals like coyotes, bears, and cougars are sometimes seen walking around in the suburbs, even on LA city streets. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 304 Here’s one in the Valley. The article says: “Jim O’ Neal was showering when he peered out his window and spotted the cougar... it was just walking down the street on its merry way. It never did run...” What if one of those creatures showed up here in your neighborhood? What would you think? Cue: Why do you think these animals are coming so close to people all of a sudden? Key topic 1 Interactions with Southern California Marine Wildlife a. Now its not uncommon for people in LA to interact with wildlife at the beach. When you’ve gone to the beach, what kind of animals and birds have you noticed? Cues: Does anyone here have a special memory of seeing an animal at the beach? Like seeing dolphins, seals, whales, pelicans, sand worms, jellyfish, or the like? For instance, I remember once seeing a seal on the side of the road, right near the beach. b. Many people go to the beach to collect food items, like crabs, fish, and clams, which they then take home and cook later. Have you ever done that? Have you done it a lot? Cue: What do you fish? Mussels? Shellfish? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 305 Key topic 2 Background training, family and cultural traditions a. When you were a kid, did your relatives ever fish, or hunt, or trap wild animals, or keep chickens or raise other animals for food, even bees or worms for bait? Did your people ever kill animals that were seen as a danger, like a predator, snake or pest? Did you help them with that? Did you do that with your Mom or you Dad? b. How about other animal-related outings, like going birdwatching, or whalewatching, did you do that? Or did you watch animal-related programs on TV or movies? c. Did you have animals around the house, in the yard or out back in stables? Like dogs or turtles, ant farms, or horses in the bam. d. When you were a kid, did grown-ups tell you about animals? Does anyone here remember a specific story? (For example, my Mom used to collect starfish at the beach). How about traditional stories that get told about anim als or fairytales or fables or folk stories? e. What about religion, are there some religious teachings you learned that concern animals? For instance, in some religions, animals are almost equal to people, while in others they may be sacrificed. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 306 Key topic 3 Cultural Conflicts a. Looking at it now, what do you think of traditional ideas you grew up with? (If disagree with traditional ideas) Can you remember the time or even an event in your life when you began to think about animals in a different way from your parents or relatives, or from when you were a child? Why do you suppose you think differently now? Do you think living in the US or in a city like LA has influenced how you think about animals? (If agree with traditional ideas) In a city like LA where there are so many people who may not share your ideas or background, how easy or difficult has it been to keep to your traditions? Does your participation in community activities make a traditional lifestyle easier for you? Key topic 4 Cultural Practices of Others (version used in the African American, Latina, Chicana focus groups) Talking about traditional practices, sometimes people from other cultural backgrounds do things to animals that we might not like or that we find odd. For instance, not too Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 307 long ago two people were arrested for eating a dog. Do you think it was fair to arrest them, considering that where they came from it’s considered perfectly OK to eat dogs? Are there things that people with different traditions do to or with animals that you object to? If so what? Key topic 4 Cultural Practices of Others (version used in the Chinese and Filipina focus groups) Talking about traditional practices, sometimes people from other cultural backgrounds do things to animals that we might not like or that we find odd. For instance, off and on there has been a big uproar about people who’ve had rooster and dog fights. Do you think this uproar is fair, considering that where they came from it’s considered perfectly OK to have rooster and dog fights? Are there things that people with different traditions do to or with animals that you object to? If so what? Key topic 5 General Environmental Values During this past year, because of the El Nino, unhealthy sea animals from large to small, from whales and seals to birds and fish, were appearing on our beaches. How should people respond to this kind of situation? Do we, as humans, have responsibility to animals during times like these? Why or why not? Does the kind of animal affected make a difference? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 308 Key topic 6 Gender Differences OK Ladies! We’re almost done! Just one more question! Some research has shown that women and men have very different ideas about animals. Do you think that’s true or not? What are some examples that come to mind? Transition / Ending Do you have any questions for us? Thank you for participating in this research and for being patient with our questions. If you’d like to review our write-up of this discussion, please leave us your address and we’ll mail it to you. Now, we have envelopes for each of you. Thank you again! Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. M em b er o f anim al organization, A ge, E ducation, A nim al experience, L A and U S residency Individual Fam ily - social C ultural C ross cultural - R eligion - R ecreation - F ood - S ervice - C om panion - E lim ination - O ther G endered (m ale, fem ale) Individual F am ily - social Cultural C ro ss cultural G en d er Individual F am ily - social C ultural C ro ss cultural G en d er P ractice P erceptions, know ledge V alues, attitudes E xperience Anthropocentric - N egativistic - U til - dom inionistic - A esthetic - A nim al w elfare - U til - stew ardship - O ther (supernatural,.) Biocentric - E n v - naturalistic - A nim al rights - E nv - stew ardship - O th er (coexistence,.) D om estic W ild F ood vs non food o v O Appendix D : T h e Coding Tree 310 Appendix E: Selecting AOOs The data for the Los Angeles County AOO inventory were gathered over a five month period (February to June 1998). AOO names and addresses were compiled from a variety of different sources; the World Wide Web was perhaps most helpful in informing our inventory. Government agencies were listed in telephone directories and in city webpages, however these listings were often incomplete or incorrectly identified as to jurisdiction or mission. Large to medium size organizations, such as the National Audubon Society, the Sierra Club or Trout Unlimited, often had websites and their individual chapters were identified in the Green Pages or the 1997 Directory o f Environmental Organizations. However because listings for each affiliated chapter depend on individual chapter initiatives, affiliated information was often uneven. Humane societies, such as the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), were found via the web, were listed in telephone directories, in the Los Angeles Source Book, or were identified through flyers distributed at mobile pet adoption centers and in free adoption newsletters at shelters and pet stores. From these last venues we also heard of individual breed rescue centers, and obtained a list of about hundred such names and telephone numbers from a volunteer at a county shelter. Rescue newsletters, especially the Muttmatcher Messenger, were particularly useful to identify small and specialized AOOs. As can be expected, large animal display institutions were widely advertized in tourist brochures, on the web, and were featured in city newspapers or in thematic newspapers, such as one serving parents of toddlers. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 311 Smaller AOOs, such as family owned display farms, may not have advertized beyond a sign in front of their facility, and we had to rely on word of mouth to find them. Advocacy organizations were found through the Worldwide Web and through more specialized venues, such as Amy Achor’s book on animal rights. Ferrets Anonymous was found on the Net, and the names of hunting and sportfishing clubs were collected primarily from special interest newspapers such as Western Outdoor News. The presence of hunting clubs (and, we suspect, of other organizations such as pro vivisection organizations) on the web appears to be specifically and intentionally limited due to fears of on-line reprisals. In most instances, the information was incomplete. Most organizations lacked a street address or zip code or mission statement, or other local chapters were suspected to exist. The task of following up with a telephone call often proved difficult because many organizations are volunteer-based, or are managed by people who work all day and return home to tend to the animals (as in some private shelters and rescue organizations). Other groups, such as fishing and hunting organizations, were led on the basis of monthly meetings at a local restaurant for instance, and thus while important (in offering education training workshops for instance) they have no mailing address nor headquarter per se. In order to insure as complete an inventory as possible we systematically reviewed our geographical coverage, by checking all telephone directories, web sites of both Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 312 organizations and individual cities, by looking at web links of animal related agencies and organizations, and by site visits to recently developed communities, which could have shelters yet to be broadly listed. Also, we cross-referenced many lists (which was particularly important for finding breed fanciers clubs) and asked various informants (which was useful for finding hunting and fishing clubs) to refer us to others. However, it should be noted that AOOs are dynamic and that, like many grassroot organizations, their appearance on the scene can be as quick to emerge as it is to dissipate. For profit organizations, such as pet stores or veterinary clinics clearly influence attitudes toward animals, but were excluded since their purpose is largely economic. In addition, two other sorts of AOOs were excluded from the inventory: parks and organizations without a geographic location. While parks are critical for the well being of many animals, their focus is on human recreation and on conserving natural resources (such as clean air) or prototypical environments (such as chaparral), not animals specifically. Organizations without a geographic location— ‘Virtual AOOs’— may claim to be LA-based but really only exist on the web (such as Adopt-A-Pet, an on-line pet adoption site), or as telephone referral organization (such as the Pet Assistance Foundation). It is important to note that several categories of AOOs were likely to have been missed in our inventory. These types include small and/or unorganized entities, and those unable or unwilling to have a public presence (because the ‘organization’ is run by a lone individual, or due to fear that their practices might Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 313 be perceived as cruel). Also some organizations are unlisted in any major information source because they are illegal (eg dog or cockfighting clubs). Similarly, ephemeral events, such as the Catholic Church’s blessing of animals, adoption events organized at street comers, or animal competitions organized to generate money for another organization (such as dog jumping exhibits) were not recorded for this study. Indeed despite the fact that these events have an impact on how animals are treated and represented, and are important in bonding animal lovers or owners together, their ephemeral nature precludes them from sustained analysis. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 314 Appendix F: The Missions of AOOs AOO mission statements are heterogenous: some can be formal, others less so, some are simply outdated. And many smaller, less formal, groups have not developed such statements at all. Some AOO statements of purpose are brief while others are more descriptive of their raison d ’ etre and of their differences from other organizations. AOOs that are chapter of a larger organization share a mission statement with that organization, be it a governmental body (such as the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Services) or a private organization (such as the ASPCA). Other AOOs take pride in their unaffiliated grassroots status. Most mission statements tended to combine several roles, such as education, referral, and placement. In this section each AOO inventory category is reviewed through the content of representative and exceptional mission statements. I hereby describe these, in a shortened version or have paraphrased them. Education organizations AOOs (including the subcategories of information, exhibits, programs) promote the better care of animals, their protection, preservation, and restoration in the wild, through presentations in schools, research, exhibits, and speeches given by volunteers or docents. Some examples of their mission statements are: to educate the public about the joys of non-consumptive recreational butterflying (North American Butterfly Association, Inc.), to protect through education, conservation, and research (American Cetacean Society, California Monarch Studies, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 315 Orangutan Foundation International), and to conduct presentations in schools (Bugs Axe My Business). For display institutions especially, these organizations’ educative function is often combined in mission statements with recreational and research functions. The Cabrillo Marine Aquarium, for example aims to protect through education, conservation, and research. Recreation organizations engage in a variety of purposes that are mostly human oriented. They may act to help people with disabilities, support excellence in a sport, provide a place to walk dogs off-leash, promote camaraderie between gay and straight rodeo participants, support pigeon racing or even snake avoidance classes for dogs. Some organizations establish professional standards for personal protection dog certification (World Protection Dog Association), involve other AOOs such as breed fanciers or breed rescue, as well as for-profit organizations such as breeders. Horses in particular are well represented: many equine AOOs promote specialized training such as dressage for horses (California Dressage Society), provide competition and award prizes for breed fanciers (Cal-Bred Futurity and Maturity), or organize shows for riders with mental and physical disabilities (California Network for Equestrian Therapy Horseshow). Recreation organizations also try to reinforce the human-animal bond, because it has been “proven to increase the recovery of patients” (Create-A-Smile Animal-Assisted Therapy), to provide guide dogs free of charge to blind persons (Guide Dogs of America), or relatedly by assisting people with HIV in keeping, feeding and caring for their pets (Pets Are Wonderful Support for People Living with Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 316 HIV)- Finally many AOOs work to promote responsible pet ownership (Actors and Others for Animals). Service Provision AOOs such as shelters, animal rehabilitation, sanctuary, and spay/neuter organizations are most directly concerned with animal rescue, sheltering, and placement of lost and/or sick animals. LA City Animal Services recently rewrote their mission as enabling people and animals to live together. Other examples of purposes of private sector organizations are: to distribute spay/neuter vouchers and maintain a list of animals available for adoption (Actors and Others for Animals), to save from the “death row” of shelters (The Amanda Foundation) and providing shelters that advertise as ‘no kill’ shelters (Cats in Need of Human Care, Pet Orphans). Of these a few specialize in rescuing feral cats, saving stranded or sick sea mammals, rehabilitating sick, injured and orphaned birds (Wild Wings of California), and operating sanctuaries for all types of animals. Included in this category are government organizations that work to enforce, regulate, or protect people (and people’s interests such as crops). For instance they monitor for medfly infestation and keep statistics on animal damage (Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner), or protect humans from animals considered ‘pests’ (Los Angeles County Vector Control). Finally professional organizations such as that of veterinarians (Los Angeles County Veterinary Public Health) are visible entities (at dog shows or agricultural fairs) covering all aspects of animal care. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 317 Advocacy organizations function to legislate, raise awareness, or stop the slaughter of particular animals. They may concern themselves with a local problem, a larger issue or try to change particular attitudes. Some put an emphasis on taking concrete steps in very different ways, such as by promoting vegetarianism, through animal rescue, or by organizing celebrity guests to give various animal oriented functions greater visibility. Statements sometimes explain how they achieve these goals, for instance they may promote their philosophies or objectives through education (especially children), non violence, or through collaboration with another organization. Advocacy may be on behalf of animals by promoting animal rights, welfare, or preservation. For instance, Animal Emancipation Inc works to abolish institutionalized animal exploitation in all forms, the Animal Legislative Action Network seeks to produce for animals the same legal protections we enjoy as human beings, the California Wildlife Defenders functions to eradicate prejudice toward predators, the ASPCA tries to alleviate pain, fear and suffering of animals, and the Committee for a Cruelty Free California’s role is to pass the California Draize Bill (an anti vivisection bill). Sometimes advocacy is at least partly on behalf of humans, for instance many organizations work to encourage children to be kind by promoting contact with animals, or to promote the legalization of ferrets as pets in California (Ferrets Anonymous). This brief review of mission statements highlights the common purposes and divergent ends of AOOs. In common, statements are drafted to win public support and thus emphasize human benefits and anthropocentric aspects. In fact many groups exist to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 318 serve or protect humans, a notable exception being the Orangutan Foundation International, few work to preserve species at all levels (these tend to locate in capital cities, such as the Cougar Foundation in Sacramento). When species (or subspecies or breed) is represented at a local or regional level it tends to be either as a breed or sporting animal. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix G: MAOOs in Los Angeles County American Cetacean Society* Cabrillo Marine Aquarium* California Department of Fish and Game* Friends of Madrona Marsh Greater Los Angeles Zoo Hook Set (bass fishing club) California Department of Recreation and Parks* Los Angeles County Animal Care and Control Long Beach City Long Beach Aquarium Malibu Wildlife Center and Emergency Response Marine Mammal Care Center at Fort McArthur* Los Angeles County Museum Natural History* National Audubon Society, Palos Verdes/South Bay National Marine Fisheries Service, Marine Mammal Stranding Program * National Marine Fisheries Service, the Pacific Recreational Fisheries* Pasadena Casting Club Point Vicente Interpretive Center San Fernando Valley Saltwater Fisherman Save the Whales Sea Shepherd Conservation Society South Bay Wildlife Rehabilitation Center* Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 320 UCLA Ocean Discovery Center Whale Rescue Team* * denotes the MAOOs that were selected for interviews Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 321 Appendix H: Interview Questions Topic #1. Demographics of the MAOO 1.1 How many people are on your staff? What is their ethnic breakdown? 1.2 How many volunteers do you have and what is their ethnicity? 1.3 How many people do you reach through your programs and facility? Do you know their ethnic breakdown? Has any of this changed over the last decades? How do you know? 1.4 How many members do you have? Do you have an idea of their ethnicity? Topic #2. Outreach efforts 2.1 What kind of outreach do you do to attract new members? Do you do outreach to specific subpopulations in the community? 2.2 If so, how do strategies differ across groups? 2.3 Are brochures and signage ever translated? Does anyone on staff speak Spanish or other languages? 2.4 When planning for new exhibits, does culture and cultural diversity ever play in the process? When topics of culture come up, how does the staff decide whether or not to make it part of the curricula? Do you ask for help or look at how other organizations have dealt with potentially culturally sensitive issues? Do you plan on doing that in the future? If it is not part of the curricula now, do you plan on making it be next time there is a revision? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2.5 Do you know what have been the results of outreach efforts? 322 Topic #3. Harmful practices 3.1 What instances of harmful human animal interactions do you know of? 3.2 Is this from first or second hand experience? Do you have a systematic way of hearing about these harmful practices, or is it through informal conversation? Topic #4. Paying attention to culture 4.1 How do you determine whether a practice is related to culture? 4.2 How do you determine when a culture-related issue has to be addressed? Do you ever mount exhibits specifically related to local culture and attitudes toward marine life? Do you ever solicit feedback from visitors, on this or other sets of issues? 4.3 Do you ever take a public position on other people’s cultural practices? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Diverse cultural attitudes toward marine wildlife

PDF

*Class and place within the Los Angeles African American community, 1940--1990

PDF

An integrative analysis of racism and quality of life: A comparison of multidimensional moderators in an ethnically diverse sample

PDF

Impact of language and culture on a neuropsychological screening battery for Hispanics

PDF

An adolescent -parent conflict resolution skills training program for ethnically diverse families: A program evaluation study

PDF

In church with my ancestors: The changing shape of religious memory in the Republic of Armenia and the North American diaspora

PDF

"From where are you back home?": Ethnography of Filipina domestic workers spending Sundays at Statue Square

PDF

Identity politics and accessing discourses: SLA narratives of Korean immigrants

PDF

Depression and suicidality in Latino adolescents: A study of acculturation and gender role beliefs

PDF

Farewell to the empire? National identity, domestic structures, and foreign economic policies of the post -Soviet states

PDF

Chinese immigrants united for self -empowerment: Case study of a weekend Chinese school

PDF

Deviant cosmopolitanism: Transgressive globalization and traveling citizenship

PDF

Ethnic identity in Parsee teenagers

PDF

Differences in the development of citizenship: Residents' motivations and capacities for participating in neighborhood associations in Los Angeles

PDF

Child sexual abuse in a sample of male and female Hispanic and White nonclinical adolescents: Extending the reliability and validity of the Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI)

PDF

Engaging communities in the planning of new urban public schools

PDF

Ethnic identity and nationalism in Taiwan

PDF

Chicana poetics: Performing desire, recasting archetypes

PDF

Evidence for type 2 diabetes related quantitative trait locus on chromosome 6q: Joint analysis of Finnish and Mexican American families

PDF

Living on the edge: Vietnamese fishermen in southern California

Asset Metadata

Creator Lassiter, Unna Inger (author)

Core Title In this nature: Culture, place, and attitudes toward marine animals

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Geography

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture,environmental sciences,Geography,OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, social,sociology, ethnic and racial studies

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Wolch, Jennifer (committee chair), Pulido, Laura (committee member), Sloane, David (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-80971

Unique identifier UC11338085

Identifier 3018099.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-80971 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3018099.pdf

Dmrecord 80971

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Lassiter, Unna Inger

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA