Zoo Spectatorship

In Randy Malamud’s “Zoo Spectatorship,” the author speculates upon the habits of zoo-goers and argues that zoo spectatorship is essentially an activity that requires little effort or inquiry and that it is conducive to “distasteful…inappropriate or undesirable behavior. (AR 220)” Furthermore, he argues the zoo is a place where sociopathic tendencies are encouraged, where voyeurs thrive, and where humans feed off their own power dynamic over the animals. Yet, there is also something about zoos that fail to fulfill this voyeuristic project. While some part of me believes there were good intentions behind the creation of the zoo phenomenon, I cannot help but believe that Malamud’s argument is completely valid. The zoo is a one-sided spectator sport, where animals have no say in their fate. Their every movement is watched in the name of human entertainment, while the human pays no mind to the grotesqueness of the animals’ treatment. Less than an observational encounter, I argue, in agreement with Malamud, that the behavior of zoo animals has no effect on the spectator, unless they fail to make any sort of appearance. Whether the animals are visibly angry, tired, or unhappy has little more impact than if they seem to be content with their life in captivity. The spectators have no preference as to what the animals do, as long as they do something that can be deemed entertaining. Because of this, humans lose their sense of ethos and adopt voyeuristic tendencies for their enjoyment.