Anthropomorphisation of Nature Conservation: Conservation Communication Taking a Human Lens (Part 2)

By Dorothy Tang
March 2021

Click Here To Meet Our Guest Contributor: Dorothy Tang

Following on from Part 1, I believe the criticism fundamentally reflects a disagreement of what is valid nature conservation and legitimate science and what is not. Researchers of science studies call the conscious or unconscious distinction between the two as “boundary work”.

Wildlife documentaries illustrate perfectly what “boundary work” is. The most popular wildlife documentaries are not those which describe in details of the facts and figures of wildlife ecology. Instead, they commonly attribute animals with humanised behaviours, relationships and emotions through utilising camera angles and narrations. This creates emotional attachments as we easily identify with anthropomorphised meanings. Through establishing visual thrills and emotional connections, wildlife documentaries effectively establish a sense of reality, trustworthiness, and validity about their claims.

A similar approach has been used in the anthropomorphised terminologies from the above examples. This communication approach focuses not on scientific facts and figures. Instead, it narrates with humanised experiences to enable its claims about nature and make it scientifically plausible. This experience-focused narration frames conservation as a human-experience issue involving wildlife, but not a scientific issue involving ecosystem risks, changing how we relate to conservation.

I believe anthropomorphisation can challenge us to reflect on our anthropogenic role in nature. Anthropomorphisation does not instruct us on what we should do by providing scientific evidence. It encourages us to actively construct our believes and stances. It gives us the ownership over our thoughts and actions to protect nature. While conservation should undoubtedly be done scientifically, science is not meant to be a constraint on the way we imagine nature and wildlife.

I believe everyone has a seed of nature in their heart somewhere. Giving back the ownership to “imagine nature” wildly and freely is crucial for mediating our damaged human relations with nature.

Return to Part 1: Criticisms of Anthropomorphisation to Communicate Conservation

References:
Cox, R., 2013. Environmental communication and the public sphere. London: Sage.
Holliman, R., Whitelegg, L., Scanlon, E., Smidt, S. and Thomas, J., 2009. Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media. Oxford University Press.
Mellor, F., 2003. Between fact and fiction: Demarcating science from non-science in popular physics books. Social Studies of Science, 33(4), pp.509-538.
Milstein, T., 2008. When whales “speak for themselves”: Communication as a mediating force in wildlife tourism. Environmental communication, 2(2), pp.173-192.