Technologies of KnowingSonia Misra and Maria Zalewska, editors, Spectator 36:1 (Spring 2016): 43-57.

43

Introduction

We live in a brave new world. In the not too distant past, most humans would go their whole lives without ever seeing a panda. Now, if this article bores you, you can use your computer or mobile device to view several high-quality live video feeds of pandas. This easy access comes courtesy of the ‘Panda Cam’ – a generic term denoting streaming video setups, which monitor and broadcast the activity of pandas in zoos or enclosed nature reserves. While these cameras offer perpetual visual access to pandas, the technology remains in a research blind spot.

Scholars have addressed at length many subjects related to the Panda Cam, but the unique ethics and implications of this viewing practice have not received sustained consideration. Dealing with pandas demands a level of specificity, due to their

exceptional cultural status. The species has become (literally) emblematic of disappearing wildlife and the importance of conservation. At the same time, the out-of-proportion levels of money and attention they attract irritates some serious conservationists. Certain captive pandas attain near-celebrity status, complete with breathless news coverage of their ‘relationships’ and pregnancy melodramas. This same charisma makes them invaluable commodities, capable of exponentially increasing zoo revenues and playing roles in geopolitical diplomacy.

While pandas deserve special consideration given their unusual status, this does not mean that discussing pandas can only yield insights about pandas. The iconic and controversial panda looms large in the popular imagination. The way pandas are presented, framed, and narrativized impacts human perceptions of the larger non-human world.

Isaac Rooks

Pandopticon: The Panda Cam & Animal Surveillance

AbstractPanda Cams, which monitor and broadcast the activity of pandas in zoos or enclosed nature reserves, make an exceedingly

rare and elusive species part of everyday life, creating the illusion of having unfettered access to the lives of these animals. They also represent a highly successful realization of the nature webcam’s potential, particularly in relation to managed environments. This article uses the Panda Cam as a case study to consider the unique ethics and implications of this relatively new method of observing and connecting with non-human animal life. To begin, this article contextualizes the out-of-proportion importance of pandas in the popular imagination. The charismatic panda has become (literally) emblematic of disappearing wildlife and the importance of conservation. The way pandas are presented, framed, and narrativized impacts human perceptions of the larger non-human world. The ubiquitous access enabled by webcam surveillance technology complements perceived connections with pandas fostered by traditional media sources. However, the Panda Cam exacerbates traditional criticisms of zoos. For good or ill, zoos have long shaped how humans understand the natural world and their relation to it, and this technology stands to change how humans experience these institutions. The article also places the Panda Cam in relation to alternative methods of watching animals, specifically wildlife documentaries and webcams set up in the wild. I ultimately argue that the zoo webcam technology cannot replace those forms, but can supplement them in important ways – lacking the documentary’s careful curation or the nature webcam’s illusion of a pristine and remote natural world. While acknowledging criticisms of the zoo webcam technology, this article argues that it would be a mistake wholly to reject a tool so successful in fostering affection and connection with a non-human species. One must recognize the good intentions and positive effects of this new technology, rather than castigating it for not conforming to an image of authentic nature. Yet, at this early stage, there still exists room for improvement. The technology in its current form often encourages a passive engagement with a subordinated natural world that audiences view on their own terms. In the future, this technology should strive to encourage a more active viewing experience and productively incorporate the frustration that often accompanies the physical zoo experience, or other nature webcams.

44 SPRING 2016

PANDOPTICONIn the ecology of human environmental attitudes, pandas are a keystone species.

The Panda Cam plays an important role shaping how the public views these animals. It makes this once exotic species a part of everyday life, creating the illusion of having unfettered access to the lives of these animals. The Panda Cam represents a highly successful realization of the nature webcam’s potential, particularly in relation to managed environments. This format will likely become an increasingly common method by which humans view animals. Indeed, in the near future, certain critically endangered species will probably exist in artificial or managed environments exclusively. At that time, these creatures will only be accessible to the majority of humans through formats that allow remote viewing of these areas.

The technology holds great promise, but this is an early point in its development. While pandas are the format’s superstars, zoo webcams have been around since 1996. Back in 2001, a Zoo Atlanta representative told a reporter that, one day, “I’d like to see the entire zoo online.”1 The realization of this goal is a ways off, but the technology is spreading internationally and monitors a number of species in several zoos.2 For good or ill, zoos have long shaped how humans understand the natural world and their relation to it, and this technology stands to change how humans experience these institutions.

So what to make of this post-modern communion with the natural world? Does it simply produce a thoroughly de-naturalized and commodified nature – an exacerbated version of what critics suggest zoos always offered? How do these webcams inflect zoos’ ostensible purpose: to educate the public, encourage environmentalist attitudes, and foster human-animal connections? Addressing these questions requires first considering the unique biological and cultural position of the panda, before situating them in the often-scrutinized zoo project. The digitized zoo must then be considered in relation to wildlife documentary films and other nature webcams, as these represent popular alternative non-fiction methods of remotely viewing animals. How then does the Panda Cam’s viewing pleasures and narrative strategies compare to these other formats?

I view the technology with guarded optimism. It would be a mistake to wholly reject

a tool so successful in raising funds for real-world conservation projects, and fostering affection and connection with a non-human species. One must recognize the good intentions and positive effects of this new technology, rather than castigating it for not conforming to an image of authentic nature. Yet, at this early stage, there still exists room for improvement. The technology encourages a passive engagement with a subordinated natural world that audiences view on their own terms. In the future, this technology should strive to encourage a more active viewing experience and productively incorporate the frustration that often accompanies the physical zoo experience, or other nature webcams. These adaptations might better acknowledge and encourage respect of non-human animal autonomy, even while catering to the inevitable human desire to view animals.

The Original Non-Digital

As with many other endangered species,3 the panda’s problems stem from human activity putting pressure on their precarious evolutionary adaptations. Pandas subsist on a 99 percent bamboo diet, despite never developing the herbivorous digestive system necessary to reap the full benefits of such a diet.4 As described by one popular science report: “pandas spend up to 14 hours each day consuming up to 12.5 kg (27.5 pounds) of leaves and stems, but digest only about 17% of it. To conserve energy, the bears also spend up to 12 hours each day sleeping, giving the impression of an animal that eats purely to have enough energy to carry on eating.”5 This helps explain their narrow annual reproductive window and subsequent low birth rates.6 During periods of abundant contiguous bamboo forests, multiple potential mates, and few natural predators, pandas could sustain this ecological niche. However, human development fragmented their habitats and population groups, leaving pandas vulnerable to periodic bamboo die-off and a lack of genetic diversity. Poaching and the illegal trade of panda pelts also contributed to shrinking numbers. While none of these external, human-caused threats have been eradicated, extraordinary conservation efforts mitigate these factors and have led to (relatively) impressive increases in the wild panda population. 2014 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) estimates

45TECHNOLOGIES OF KNOWING

ROOKSmade it readily apparent that pandas were valuable assets for zoos. However, when the last American panda died in 1952, it took almost two decades for their reintroduction, in what would subsequently become known as ‘panda diplomacy.’14

After the People’s Republic of China consolidated control over the emblematic indigenous species, the PRC took ideological and commercial advantage of this natural resource. The PRC initiated a program of strategically “[gifting] 24 pandas as ‘goodwill ambassadors’ to nine nations during 1957-1983.”15 This included two pandas sent to the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. in 1972, marking Nixon’s visit to China and the two nations’ warming relations. A new market-driven loan process began in 1984, wherein “prestigious zoos in nations seen as important markets for Chinese products were offered the opportunity to lease pandas for six-figure sums plus a percentage of merchandizing sales.”16 China could extract such lucrative deals because pandas significantly boost the interest, admissions, and merchandise sales that keep zoos afloat. Zoos present themselves as wildlife havens and sites of education, but they are also commercial enterprises. If the public wants to see pandas, it makes sense for zoos to cater to their interests. Zoos cannot be blamed for originating cultural biases, but they do encourage “a cultural sensibility that is not inherently ecological.”18 Indeed, objections to the overtly commercial logic of this early loan process necessitated changing panda captivity programs, making them more beneficial to the species.

A significant proportion of the world’s total panda population currently exists in some form of captivity – either in zoos or carefully managed wildlife refuges in China.19 These ‘reserve pandas’ can be seen as a safeguard for wild populations. However, pandas in these isolated sites are removed from an already limited gene pool.20 Pandas in zoos are notoriously difficult to breed, while strategies for releasing pandas bred in sanctuaries back into the wild are still developing and have, to date, shown little success.21 According to the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species, the leasing of endangered animals, like pandas, cannot be driven by commercial incentives. It may “be permitted for only scientific purposes and/or to enhance propagation and survival of the

placed their numbers at 1864, up from around 1000 in the late 70s and increasing 17 percent in the past decade.7

These gains are especially impressive in light of the cultural and political barriers with which panda conservation strategies contended. A 1994 report noted: “In China, wildlife has traditionally been considered as a harvestable resource for the benefit of its more than 1 billion people…. Lack of understanding and ridicule have plagued conservationists of all nationalities in China, particularly in the early 1980s.”8 Rigorous conservation efforts were further stymied by political struggles within China and troubled international relations, which prevented the free exchange of expertise and funding between Chinese and foreign parties.9

That geopolitical barrier stood in the way of a Western obsession with pandas dating back to 1936, when the explorer Ruth Harkness brought the first panda (a cub named Su Lin) to the US. In 1937, Chicago’s Brookfield Zoo acquired Su Lin. She was the first of 14 pandas bought by zoos outside of China, before China stopped exporting pandas in 1946.11 These early pandas did not live long in captivity, but they were hugely popular with crowds. In 1939, the St. Louis Zoo acquired Happy the Panda. The day of Happy’s initial appearance “the zoo drew a record-breaking forty thousand visitors. [After that] Fifteen thousand people a day, on average, came to view [the panda]… the crowds waited patiently to see him and, whenever he made a brief appearance in the yard, they cheered.”12 From the start, it was clear that pandas were zoo stars.

Undoubtedly, the panda’s rarity and exotic status contributes to its popularity. However, the panda’s endearing physical qualities better explain why people view it with such great affection. In a 2013 New Yorker report, David Owen attempts to describe the appeal of pandas: “they resemble enormous plush toys… but their eyes are broadly expressive, in the way that dogs’ eyes are…. They are [also] able to hold things almost as we do, making them seem less like real bears and more like Disney animations.”13 The panda seems like it was cobbled together by a savvy marketer, rather than resulting from natural processes. Its appearance conditions many people to value pandas more than other, less appealing animals. Early reactions to captive pandas

46 SPRING 2016

PANDOPTICONIn the case of pandas, the media amplifies the public’s connection to and affection for these animals by broadcasting and narrating their lives. Meanwhile, the Panda Cam’s new display method, provides perpetual visual access to these animals. This satisfies the public’s desire to see pandas, and further enhances the pandas’ place in the popular imagination. Recent activity at the National Zoo provides a useful case study for how these two elements (news coverage and easy access) combine to create powerful emotional connections.

“It’s All Happening at the Zoo”

“To the U.S. Congress: Do you people have any idea how fast a baby giant panda grows…? We’ll never get these moments with [Bao Bao] back. Ever. And it’s YOUR fault.”28 There were many reasons to be upset with Congress when the government shut down for 16 days in October 2013. Yet, as exemplified by the above Facebook post, for some the shutdown’s (semi) joking touchstone was the blackout of the National Zoo’s Panda Cam. During that time, visitors to the site found only a black box where a live video of pandas should have been.

Tensions were especially high because audiences wanted to watch the continued development of the infant Bao Bao. As articulated by fans of the Panda Cam, that desire stemmed from something deeper than just wanting to see a cute baby animal, although that was certainly a factor.29 Audiences felt a sense of ownership and emotional investment in the life of Bao Bao.30 The cub was the happy ending of a pregnancy melodrama playing out since 2007 – a cycle of unsuccessful impregnation efforts, false pregnancies, and premature death. 31 It is a narrative all too common for the notoriously difficult to breed giant pandas. On one level, Bao Bao meant the ranks of an endangered species increased by one. Yet the stakes were more personal than that. Part of the fans’ investment came from the fact that they were monitoring Bao Bao before she even entered the world.

A month before Bao Bao’s birth, the panda exhibit shut down. Audiences still got periodic news updates, but the newly installed Panda Cams granted round-the-clock visual access to the pregnant panda (Mei Xiang).32 Bao Bao’s birth was a proper new media event. On August 23, 2013, the

species.”22 In 1991, long-term loans replaced short-term loans.23 These aim to facilitate breeding and a self-sustaining captive population that does not require removing additional pandas from the wild. The leasing funds are now allocated specifically for giant panda management projects, so the attention pandas generate more directly advances the interests of the species. Some environmentalists argue that focusing on pandas provides an effective means of aiding larger conservation projects.

A ‘rising tide lifts all boats’ philosophy justifies the focus on pandas. The WWF’s species programs overseer Mark Wright explains: “Saving the panda has become a vehicle for preserving the bamboo forests it lives in, and that means you are helping things like the golden monkey and all sorts of birds.”24 The panda attracts the public; their investment benefits other species by proxy. The panda’s drawing power led to it being adopted as the WWF logo in 1961.25 It serves as the stand-in for all threatened (and worthy) forms of life. It makes sense to put pandas front-and-center. As charismatic megafauna, they are more capable of drawing mass public attention and resources than less photogenic animals. However, much of the money given to panda conservation does indeed stay with pandas, financing the expertise and resources necessary for their protection and propagation. This draws the ire of some environmentalists.

British conservationist Chris Packham provocatively declared: “I would eat the last panda if I could have all the money we spent on panda conservation put back on the table for me to do more sensible things with… It is absolutely urgent that [humans] get more pragmatic and less emotional about our priorities… The panda is, unfortunately, virtually unsavable.”26 Most people want the panda to exist for the same reason they want other charismatic species (like tigers and elephants) to continue inhabiting this world. It is not out of recognition of their ecological roles, or their potential to coexist with humans and thrive in rapidly developing landscapes. It is because people like them, and they especially like looking at them. Zoos cater to this emotional, rather than pragmatic, ecological sensibility. As sites of attraction, they rely primarily on visually appealing animals like the panda. They want specimen that can easily be turned into stuffed toys and other merchandise.27

47TECHNOLOGIES OF KNOWING

ROOKSpractice, something rarely discussed in relation to zoo webcams. Indeed, while researching this technology, I found only one cautionary note. An article warns zoo officials: “keepers and visitors can be observed any time they are in the [camera’s] field of view…. be aware that voyeurs will use your camera to invade privacy if the set-up allows.”36 All these cameras do is invade privacy. They simply do it to beings humans do not imagine as being entitled to privacy, or aware that their privacy is being violated. The design of zoo enclosures often includes blind spots; the animals are not always out in the open. Any visit to a zoo will include standard moments of frustration – the empty enclosure, or the crush of individuals craning their necks to catch a glimpse of a concealed animal. These camera setups subvert that design and make almost all moments of the animals’ lives in captivity visually accessible.

I am not implying a one-to-one correspondence between the ethics of ‘spying’ on unwitting animal and human subjects, for the same reason I would not compare the captivity of an animal in a zoo and that of a person in prison. Claiming such an equivalency does a disservice to the distinctions between the cases.38 Certainly, in the wild, pandas do not display much desire for human interaction. Rather than seeking people out to bask in the glow of their affection, they “avoid human contact to such an extent that a researcher could spend years studying them without ever seeing one in its natural habitat.”39 While it may not be the ‘natural’ way of things for pandas and humans to interact, I suspect captive pandas would be unconcerned over perpetually being looked at by humans (just as they would not understand the concept of ‘streaming video’ – no matter how hard one tried to explain it to them). Humans can project those concerns onto animals, just as Shapira and others project human notions of family and affection onto animals. It is unclear that animals share such concerns. Consider this article’s punny title. The pandopticon is not the panopticon. The panopticon seeks to shape the behavior of its observed inmates, as they internalize their captor’s gaze. Zoos function almost as reverse panopticons, where the indifferent captives shape the actions and attitudes of the observers. In the context of this article, I am more interested in the attitudes and actions this setup encourages.

Malamud, without reference to webcam

National Zoo sent out a Twitter alert: “Watch the panda cams now! Mei’s water broke a short time ago and she’s having contractions. She may give birth in a few hours #cubwatch.”33 The Zoo struggled to keep the cameras online with the glut of Internet traffic. A few hours later, audiences watched the cub tumble out of Mei Xiang before being scooped up into its mother’s arms.34

The public could not physically view the cub until January 18, 2014, and then only during limited time windows. That stemmed from the zoo’s official exhibition policy, and also the fact that the pandas might choose to “bond inside what the animals believe is their private den.”35 The Panda Cam circumvents both restrictions. The Zoo’s pandas occupy what The Washington Post’s Ian Shapira describes as “a veritable surveillance state, with 38 cameras capturing Mei Xiang, her newborn and the male panda, Tian Tian… under $12,000 worth of high-definition cameras and infrared lights.”� This high-tech access was only significantly interrupted by the Shutdown. When the Shutdown ended and news went out via Twitter that the pandas were again online, there was a rush on the market. According to the New York Times: “Within 10 minutes of [the Panda Cam’s] return, the feed had reached its maximum capacity of 850 connections and held there all morning…. The figure understates demand, as viewers using desktop computers must wait in line for 15-minute sessions.”�

Grumbling over the feed’s loss suggests that some people feel entitled to always being able to see pandas. The immediate surge of viewers further suggests a desire to satisfy a deprived craving. It is a trite observation that technology encourages a ravenous appetite for instant gratification. Yet that blanket assessment obscures what I find genuinely curious about this attitude towards pandas.

It is one thing to desire constant stimulation through entertainment and information, and the Panda Cam might be viewed as a source of both. Yet these are also rare, elusive, and oblivious living creatures. Let us return to Shapira’s description of the setup as “a veritable surveillance state.” While not wholly serious, Shapira frames the experience as an inappropriate intrusion on an intimate, emotional moment – the “bonding” of what he presents as a nuclear family. It invites, but does not engage, a consideration of the ethics of the viewing

48 SPRING 2016

PANDOPTICONprivacy.”44 While one might question the methods of viewership employed, humans are unlikely to be willing or able to fully relinquish their desire to see animals.

John Berger posits that interactions between humans and animals were foundational to the development of human subjectivity; prior to the 19th Century, humans would regularly interact and be in close proximity with a variety of animal life. Advances in technology and the development and industrialization of landscapes led to the gradual disappearance of animals from human’s ever-expanding environment. Humans employ a number of strategies to salve the loss and, to some measure, re-connect with animals. One such method is the domestication of animals. Another would be the proliferation of images of animals, a technique that simulates the presence of animal life.

Berger notes the unequal power dynamic that comes with this remote and one-sided ‘visual encounter’ with the animal’s image: “In the accompanying ideology, animals are always the observed. The fact that they can observe us has lost all significance.”45 These encounters no longer involve exchanged looks – humans look and the animals are looked at. This control turns animals into “objects of our ever-extending knowledge. What we know about them is an index of our power, and thus an index of what separates us from them. The more we know, the further away they are.”46 Early justifications of the Panda Cam emphasized the way the technology aided knowledge production and “serious scientific research.”47 It was reported that, in addition to audience members looking for their cute animal fix, “[t]here are a number of research scientists scattered throughout the world who spend entire days glued to their PC monitors with notebooks in hand observing every nuance of panda behavior.”48 It is a matter of controversy how much practical knowledge zoo animal observation can produce. The animals are in artificial environments, and their behavior is necessary changed in ways both inadvertent and intentional. 49 Despite claims about the Panda Cam’s educational value, I find arguments in favor of technology based on affective logic more compelling. At the same time this remote viewing underlines our distance and superiority, it also fosters affective connections, which can encourage conservationist attitudes and practices.

technology, criticizes zoos for making exotic animals “too available too easily, so audiences do not appreciate them.”40 That ease of access, Malamud argues, sends exactly the wrong message if zoos want to encourage ecological responsibility. It defuses environmentalist concerns, since “as these animals and their habitats become more endangered, it is becoming harder to know them and to connect with them, but zoos are trying to make it seem even easier, with the goal of denying the difficulties we pose to other animals.”41 Pandas and other wild animals are hard to find for a reason: humans are threats, and they do not necessarily want to be around us. Given their secretive natures and disappearing numbers, it should be next-to impossible for most humans to catch even a fleeting glimpse of a living panda. However, as long as pandas exist, various groups, for various reasons, will have an interest in putting pandas on display.

Cynthia Chris notes a perverse inverse related to pandas: even as they fail to reproduce and their population size remains precarious, they are visually reproduced.42 Images of pandas proliferate; they are widely disseminated and easily accessible. Zoos make it relatively easy for an average person to see pandas, and the Panda Cam makes it easier still. They are now a sight one can take for granted; having that access disrupted is cause for frustration (how could one be expected to go any length of time without that guaranteed access). The cause for concern is not so much whether the animals would care about this intrusive vision, but rather that the attendant sense of entitlement to see the pandas at all times potentially undercuts a sense of respect for these animals.

Some critics argue that, in order to promote effective conservation of animal species, humanity must learn to “relinquish its insistence on close encounters [with animals] in body and sight.”43 That obviously applies to the idea that not all people can go trekking off into these animals’ natural habitats. However, it also suggests that if we are going to conceptualize non-human animals as things that have a right to life and a right to share this planet with us, we cannot position them as cute virtual pets towards whom we have no real responsibility or obligations. The insistence on gaze carries a domineering and objectifying element that rejects “animal agency and its attendant right of

49TECHNOLOGIES OF KNOWING

ROOKSdrama comes not only from attempts at successful species management and propagation, but also from projections of human familial relationships onto non-humans.

One can criticize the attachments formed by these strategies, noting the anthropomorphism of such sentiments. Many criticize anthropomorphism; biologist Heini Hediger describes it as “one of the major sources of the erroneous assumptions that stand in the way of a true understanding of animals.”54 Humans cannot truly understand or respect animals if they assume that animals are like people. It will inevitably lead to false impressions, unfair judgments, and disappointment.55 It also often results in humans indirectly talking about themselves, rather than actually discussing non-humans. However, the positive potentials of these connections still exist, particularly if one offers appropriate qualifications to anthropomorphism.

Given how readily humans use anthropomorphism to understand the non-human, it seems more practical to attempt to make the process less anthrocentric, rather than attempting to wholly dismantle it. Communication scholar Tema Milstein discusses how animalcentric anthropomorphism “emphasizes both continuities and discontinuities with humans.” This creates powerful feelings of “identification through shared substance,” while acknowledging distinctions between the human and the non-human.56 Drawing on Kenneth Burke, Milstein discusses how this identification increases interest in, and concern about, conservation efforts.58 It is easier to care about something after creating identification. Those feelings can, in turn, disrupt generic human-nature binaries and their tendency towards problematic hierarchical conceptions of the human-nature relationship.

Milstein notes that emotional bonds with charismatic animals are not, in and of themselves, sufficient to promote environmentalist sensibilities. Not all animals possess the same charisma, and it is difficult to transfer affection for a particular species onto more abstract ecosystems.60 This calls into question the efficacy of conservationist strategies that focus primarily on pandas and hope to aid ecosystems and other species by proxy. If I connect to the panda, I do not ipso facto care about bamboo forests in China. While reprimands alone do not

A 2007 study of 12 zoos found that, for many visitors, the zoo “does indeed reinforce positive feelings towards animals and the environment and helps link caring for animals with action.”50 Those ‘positive feelings’ are important to foster, since “research demonstrates that emotional connection or emotional response is necessary to produce mental or behavioral change, and a stronger emotional experience may encourage greater commitment to change.”52 Confrontation and moral reprimands play a role in shaping behavior. They emphasize the consequences of apathy, complacency, and stasis. However, appeals cannot solely consist of finger wagging. Audiences need to be invested in the subject as well. Part of that might come from self-interest (degrading environmental conditions places existential pressure on the human race), but if humanity hopes to sustainably exist in a natural ecosystem, the motivation cannot be purely self-centered. Humans need to have “positive feelings” towards the non-human world, and traditional zoos help form those connections.

These webcams expand the reach of the zoo’s project beyond its physical boundaries. The gated off zoo requires a departure from the ordinary. For a high price of admission, the audience enters a world-in-miniature, stocked with diverse fauna. One visits these animals for a special occasion. The digital zoo’s low barriers of access remove a lot of the species’ and space’s exotic mystique. They are less clearly designated as things set apart from our lives – things we visit and leave like any other tourist destination. Indeed, the technology makes viewing these exotic animals practically mundane. One can imagine a person checking in on the animals periodically throughout the day, or having them on in the background while working. Ike Kamphof discusses how webcams give a sense of their depicted subjects as being co-living and co-present.53 As viewers live their lives, they watch animals living their lives in real time. With Panda Cams, audiences around the world receive high-quality, unobstructed, and close views of pandas, living life unaware of their global audience. The cameras provide contact with the pandas which feels immediate and intimate; a perceived proximity that could not occur physically. One sees the effects of those connections manifesting in the emotional dramas surrounding panda pregnancies, where the

50 SPRING 2016

PANDOPTICONtargeting mass audiences, typically present their material using formal techniques borrowed from classical narrative cinema.

Observing any animal in the wild requires countless hours of fieldwork, and long stretches of time when the animal is either not visible or not engaged in visually striking or dramatic activity. Some nature documentaries might briefly reference these conditions and production challenges, underscoring their crew’s dedication and the project’s achievement.63 However, they discard the vast majority of this material because it is difficult to make entertaining. Historian Gregg Mitman notes that the “development of film as a research and education tool within science coincided with film’s rise as a Hollywood technology of mass entertainment.”65 As such, there developed the sense that “[u]nlike other technologies created and developed specifically within the scientific laboratory, film was a technology of art and entertainment as well as scientific research. Scientists could never escape its entertainment role.”66 The medium was thought of as being intimately linked to entertainment, and its qualities and conventions predetermined what the wildlife documentary could and would be.

Film and television’s status as a primarily visual medium also influences the focus of these documentaries. Subjects ideally offer a satisfying spectacle – perhaps through their majesty and beauty, their dynamism and vitality, or their charisma and affective appeal (as in the case of pandas). Production teams must then properly curate these images. Even as their formalistic qualities largely obscure their production, the construction of these documentaries is readily obvious. By “[e]diting out inactivity, shortening and splicing action sequences, [and] adding breathless voiceover narration [and] dramatic music,” these texts provide an exciting, selective view of their subjects.67 The editing often does more than simply cut out the “boring bits” to produce an exciting montage of action.68 Documentaries usually create narratives from the formless flow of the animals’ lives. These constructed narratives often use anthropomorphism to make the animals’ lives legible to audiences, imposing on them human roles, motivations, and values.� In 2000, Derek Bousé predicted a slippery slope scenario, where improving digital technologies

make effective environmental messages, there does need to be a level of confrontation to go along with identification – something calling on humans to recognize their potential complacency in the destruction of animal life and natural environments and pointing towards actionable strategies to mitigate those conditions. Identification and confrontation cannot be divorced. Together they avoid empty entertainment, which demands little of its audience, and abstract environmentalist moral appeals, which can be counter-productive.61 Remote visual encounters play a role in fostering connections with animals. To properly understand the nature of the zoo webcam’s spectatorship, it should be considered in relation to other popular non-fiction forms of animal spectatorship: the nature documentary and webcams in the wild.

Ways to Watch

When discussing different methods of mediated wildlife spectatorship, one could easily fall into an evaluative project of weighing relative levels of authenticity and artificiality. The concern should not be which offers the best (the most authentic or the most entertaining) experience. These formats all blend the real and the constructed and each offers different types of viewing pleasure. The issue is the impact of these different presentational methods and the ways they might compliment, supplement, and correct each other. The zoo webcam offers a vision of nature which avoids the obvious construction of conventional wildlife documentaries, but which prevents audiences from becoming fully immersed in the fantasy of having a window onto the ‘real’ natural world.

The live streaming webcam is a fairly recent technology. It began in 1991 and is still proliferating and developing as a viewing method.62 The wildlife documentary was, and continues to be, the primary popular source for nonfiction moving imagery of animal life. “Wildlife documentary” is a terribly generic signifier, about as specific as “documentary.” The term encompasses a wide range of diverse subgenres. Some entries foreground the human figure (the expert, the explorer, the adventurer). Others efface the human presence, presenting a pristine and often-sublime natural world. Regardless of their type, popular examples of the form, ones

51TECHNOLOGIES OF KNOWING

ROOKSstrategy in their implementation beyond simply setting up some cameras and hoping for the best.

The nonprofit Explore.org provides an impressive and effective showcase for this technology. The site features multiple webcams set up in a variety of wildlife preserves around the world. These include four video streams of pandas in various locations in Ya’an, China. Explore.org curates these various streams, sometimes by location, sometimes specifically by species. If the location is off hours or off-season, explore.org broadcasts video highlights. Sometimes cameras are damaged, feeds fail, or weather conditions make viewing difficult. However, audiences have multiple alternative options from which to choose. While watching a video feed, audience members can take and share screenshots, comment on discussion boards, or access information about the species they are watching or organizations dedicated to their protection. A feature article promoting explore.org reported:

there’s something pleasantly creepy about spying on wild animals…. [and] it’s great that the [animals are] oblivious to all the weirdoes (like me) watching [them]. It allows for people to be engaged with wildlife without locking it up, or significantly disturbing it. The Big Brother paradigm may be ethically dubious in human social life, but it could play a key role in helping protect the social lives of wild animals.69

Here again, we see an acknowledgment of the (acceptable and pleasurable) violation of these animals’ privacy – the unique thrill of the voyeuristic live experience one misses in the nature documentary’s heavily pre-processed footage. The statement also draws a clear distinction between the experience offered by Explore.org and the tainted zoo experience.

John Berger argued that zoos exist to reconnect humans with animals and nature, a connection lost in modern urban life. For Berger, zoos inevitably fail to fulfill that purpose as people cannot actually connect or exchange glances with marginalized, disaffected, and denaturalized zoo animals. This leads some critics to speculate that, if this disappointment is

would lead to ever-greater and ever-more seamless manipulations in wildlife documentaries, all in favor of more striking cinematic presentations.� In light of Bousé’s warnings, it is interesting to note the very different direction the digital webcam technology takes wildlife presentation.

There are two broad types of webcams covering animal subjects – ones set up in zoos and ones set up in the wild. While nature documentaries emphasize action, live streams give a sense of the inactivity characterizing much of the lives of animals. An early description of the Panda Cam from 2001 reported: “I tuned in for 10 minutes of excruciating boredom while the pandas slept in a corner… The highlight of my visual experience was when one of them partially turned over.”� Despite that “excruciating boredom,” years later there is still a strong demand for the footage and affection for the animals. It suggests a popular recognition of the inherent worth of seeing an animal simply existing – for all the lack of drama that entails. However, even this format needs to keep in mind the entertainment factor.

If these venues cannot draw, engage, and retain a mass audience, that severely limits the impact of these modes of spectatorship. Many critics state a preference for webcams set up in the wild over those in zoos. Advocates of these setups particularly appreciate that they do not constrain the animals on display. However, when the format sacrifices constraint and its attendant predictability, it invites a scenario where audiences watch something similar to the raw footage of a nature documentary: hours of inactivity or empty space before something visually engaging happens (something which may never occur). Bernard Rollin describes how, in this setup, “[o]ne might need to watch for hours before one sees a lion, or never see one – that is a far truer picture of wild nature than is the zoo, where the animal is there whenever you feel like seeing it.”� Possibly such an experience would appeal to some audience members. It could create a meditative experience, wherein one develops an appreciation for the simple rhythms of nature, and where the mere sight of an animal yields tremendous satisfaction because of the anticipation.� However, if some find the guaranteed spectacle of live pandas “excruciatingly boring,” I question what the popular traction of such a presentation would be. Successful utilizations of this technology require a level of

52 SPRING 2016

PANDOPTICONhave not yet been invented.”74 However, I do not wish to simply dismiss zoo webcams as the first step towards the inherently better webcam in the wild. For one thing, that sort of assessment is not practical. Zoos have shown great staying power, and while their form might change they are unlikely to go anywhere in the near future. Zoo webcams also have their own strengths, which are related to one of the main criticisms of zoos as institutions: their artificiality.

The terminology I employ here creates a potential slippery slope. If one speaks of artifice and artificiality, it suggests the presence of an authentic or real alternative, even if such a thing only existed in the past. What is the truth of the panda, or of any animal or aspect of nature? What is the existential state of the zoo animal? Can their animals be considered true animals? In 1883, architect Theodore Link testified: “I have simply found that an animal, as closely confined as most of them are in zoological gardens, retains none of its natural habits; it only exists – a mere automaton.”75 In 2012, Malamud evinced a similar attitude in his scathing assessment of zoos: “Zoos contain sad animals, constrained animals, displaced animals, but zoo spectators are induced to sublimate this, and pretend they are looking at real animals.”76 The criticism remains because zoos have largely stayed the same.

The physical zoo space exists as a curiously outdated form of entertainment, an antiquated holdover in an increasingly postmodern world. In his book Zoos in Postmodernism, Stephen Spotte notes that, while animals in zoos are divorced from their natural conditions, the zoo experience is “too fleshy and immediate” to be postmodern.77 Being in the physical zoo space results in full sensory engagement. Even at a zoo’s entrance gates, a powerful smell hits visitors. Writers discussing zoos regularly and rightly evoke this olfactory onslaught – the byproduct of so many animals living in such close contact. Elements like that prevent visitors from forgetting the bodily presence of the animals.

Spotte, writing in 2006, never acknowledges zoo webcams. In his rejection of the concept of a postmodern zoo, Spotte concludes: “To create [a postmodern zoo] would involve forcing [the zoo] into a configuration similar to film, narrative fiction, or art, and were that to happen captive animals

inherent to those institutions, Explore.org’s type of digital zoo offers an ethical alternative.70 Audience members are still not connecting with animals, but people are also not physically intruding on the space of constrained animals. The digital zoo removes some of the wonder inherent in being physically proximate to these strange creatures, but it caters to human’s desire to watch animals, even as it reinforces the importance of relinquishing close encounters.

Explore.org founder Charles Annenberg Weingarten describes his organization as “building out the zoos of the future, where animals run wild and people from everywhere can feel connected to the experience.”71 This zoo of the future comes with a caveat: it still partially depends on the zoo of the present. A number of the cams broadcast from the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, CA. Maintaining the relevant hardware and software and keeping the technology up to date costs a lot of money. The cameras are major investments, and like any media producers the managers of these technologies need to cater to their audiences to get an appropriate return on their investment. At the time of this writing, the National Zoo was shutting down a number of its less popular webcams, which had been using obsolete technologies, and were reviewing their program. Among the factors they have to consider in relation to webcam deployment are “how active an animal is [and] how rare a species is.”72 Even major, reliable cameras (like the Panda Cam, which had 38.13 million page views last year) depend in part on donations from major corporations.73 Maintaining these technologies is difficult under the best circumstances, much less when they are in remote locations or exposed to adverse weather conditions. Perpetual technological development affects more than functionality. Improving technologies shape audience expectations in relation to image quality and reliability.

If wildlife webcams are the zoos of the future, zoo webcams are establishing and exploring the possibilities of the form. This parallels the role zoos played in the early stages of nature documentary films. While recording technologies were developing at the turn of the century, “[f ]ilming animals in a zoo [proved] much easier and more convenient than chasing them in the wilds with a camera, especially since telephoto lenses

53TECHNOLOGIES OF KNOWING

ROOKSmight then become expendable, replaced by images or similacrums.”78 In many ways, that has occurred with the Panda Cam. It offers the zoo experience without the hassle of travel, the unpleasant odors, or the frequent disappointment of animals that cannot be seen. With the Panda Cam, the animal is always within sight. And, if viewers find it asleep or it fails to capture their interest, they can log in later without being disappointed about a wasted trip. However, I am unconvinced that the zoo webcam’s images lead to the dire consequences at which Spotte hints.

Extreme preference for the nature webcam, or indeed for a completely unmonitored natural world, suggests a level of certainty about what is natural and authentic. Nature webcams allow an ‘impossible’ vision. Nature documentaries often efface the presence of humans, giving the impression of a pristine and untainted natural environment. However, one remains aware on some level that, just off-screen, sits a human crew capturing these images. That tacit understanding does not have to contaminate the nature webcam experience. While humans need to set up and monitor these feeds, the majority of the live flow is produced without direct on-site human engagement.79

Zoo webcams do not allow that level of romantic fantasy. Viewers cannot escape signs of the situation’s artificiality, and the odd and uneven relationship humans have with the natural world and non-human animals. The constructed habitats where captive pandas reside are far cries from the bamboo forests they would occupy in the wild. Audiences watching zoo Panda Cams can often see the concrete walls and bars of their enclosures. In some cases, paintings of bamboo forests and mountain ranges on the walls highlight the artifice. Presumably, these exist to remind audiences about those wilderness spaces they should want to protect. Personally, those crude renditions only make the artificiality of the panda’s cage more striking and amplify the sense that such settings are being lost, leaving only pale imitations. Zoo webcams play an important role in the ecosystem of webcams. They do not allow a simple division of the human and natural world. Instead they focus on an interesting liminal space. This space serves as a reminder that the goal of conservation cannot be a false romantic sense of a nature unaffected by and disconnected from humanity. Humans exist in the world, and

their actions impact all elements of that world. Humans therefore need to consider how they can responsibly and realistically exist in the world.

For zoo webcams to provoke those thoughts, they cannot simply be mindless ways to kill time on the Internet. Part of the question becomes how these cameras can encourage a more active engagement from their audiences. At the moment, the majority of zoo web cams only have the feed itself and links that viewers can follow to find out more about the animals or make monetary donations. Of course, doing that involves leaving the actual feed. Future developments should strive to include a supplemental interactive component that viewers can access without ending the streaming experience. Explore.org’s interface provides a nice example of ways to supplement the stream and make it a more interactive and engaging experience. Zoos might also incorporate elements from the physical zoo space. Rather than focusing on exhaustively covering certain key species, the format might benefit from limited coverage of more species – allowing animals opportunities to sip from the limelight. The resultant lulls could be made productive. Audiences might access other streams or choose to experience the meditative periods of waiting and anticipating the animal’s presence. The website might also provide entertaining educational activities to fill those gaps. In making these suggestions, I do not presume to know more about the management of these institutions than zoo professionals. These are simply basic preliminary ideas of how this new technology might develop and bring the antiquated, controversial, but still relevant zoo into the digital age.

Conclusion

Not too long ago I visited the San Diego Zoo. It was a hot day and I joined a long line of visitors waiting to file past the Panda enclosure. The line moved sluggishly, people lingering in patches of shade whenever they were lucky enough to find them. These dawdlers never allowed the line to get far enough ahead of them that someone else might slip in front. Eventually I reached the actual exhibit and there it was, sitting fatly and chewing on a piece of bamboo, gazing into the middle distance with its button eyes while visitors took photos. A zoo

54 SPRING 2016

PANDOPTICONwith an unprecedented intimate and reliable access. The Panda Cam’s greatest significance derives from what it suggests about the future of how humans will view animals. The successful Panda Cam shows what the format provides at the moment, and the strengths of the zoo webcam in relation to other viewership methods. Honest consideration of its deficiencies also point towards the way the technology might positively develop in the future. Zoos, for all their flaws, are presented as havens for endangered animals. In an age of rapidly disappearing animal life, it is of vital importance to critically consider how this technology potentially brings these dwindling biotic remnants out of the enclosures, and into the homes and minds of

employee sat to the side and periodically held up a megaphone to tell people to move along.

The experience did not do much to change my opinion of pandas. I am afraid I fall in the panda hater camp (I cannot get over the impractical bamboo diet). When it comes to panda obsessions, I am on the outside looking in. I might not get the appeal, but I recognize it and see its power. Unlike Chris Packham, I am not interested in breaking that affection for pandas (as if it were within my power). I am interested in what that affection can do.

Talking about the panda’s power in the modern age requires discussing the Panda Cam. It is the means by which the majority of people nowadays interact with this beloved and once-obscure beast

Isaac Rooks  is a Graduate School Fellow and Ph.D. Student in the Division of Cinema and Media Studies at USC’s School of Cinematic Arts. His research centers on depictions of landscapes and animals in film, particularly in horror fiction. Think: films where animals attack.

millions. Notes

1. Mark Fritz, “PandaCam: A Zoo Story,” EMedia Magazine 14.8 (2001): 27.2. Recent developments at the National Zoo highlight the challenges attending attempts to capitalize on this expensive and ever-evolving technology. Part of the question becomes which animals in the zoo’s collection warrant the camera’s scrutiny. For more detail, see Dana Hedgpeth, “This concludes your daily naked mole-rat fix,” The Washington Post, May 27, 2013, accessed May 30, 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/so-it-aint-so-no-more-live-web-camera-of-the-naked-mole-rat-says-national-zoo/2015/05/27/8e3df36a-0463-11e5-8bda-c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html. 3. Pandas are officially classified as an Endangered species by the IUCN, and are “therefore considered to be facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild.” For a more detailed explanation of the various conservation statuses, see “IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria,” 2nd Ed. (2012): 14-22, https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/RL-2001-001-2nd.pdf. 4. “Ailuropoda melanoleuca (Giant Panda),” IUCN Red List, accessed May 25, 2015, http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/712/0. 5. Hannah Devlin, “Hard to Bear: Pandas Poorly Adapted for Digesting Bamboo, Scientists Find,” The Guardian (May 19, 2015), accessed May 19, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/19/hard-to-bear-pandas-poorly-adapted-for-digesting-bamboo-scientists-find. 6. Ibid. “Female pandas ovulate only once a year, in the spring, and have a window of only two to three days around ovulation when they are able to conceive.”7. “How Many are Left in the Wild?”, WWF, accessed May 20, 2015, http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/giant_panda/panda/how_many_are_left_in_the_wild_population/. 8. Stephen J. O’Brien, Pan Wenshi & Lu Zhi, “Pandas, People and Policy,” Nature 369 (1994): 179. 9. While China’s conservation efforts benefitted from international cooperation and funding, this should not undermine the efforts and contributions of Chinese officials and experts. Cynthia Chris discusses how the American media tends to frame these cooperative efforts as instances where heroic Western officials must overcome ignorant or apathetic Chinese individuals, who fail to appreciate the panda as a resource. See Cynthia Chris, “The Giant Panda as Documentary Subject,” in Watching Wildlife (Minneapolis: U Minnesota P, 2006), 167-196. 10. “History of the Giant Panda,” WWF, accessed May 25, 2015, http://wwf.panda.org/?13588/History-of-the-Giant-Panda. 11. Jeffrey P. Bonner, “The Panda Wars,” in Sailing with Noah: Stories from the World of Zoo (Columbia, MO: U Missouri P, 2006), 216.12. David Owen, “Bears Do It,” The New Yorker, September 2, 2013.13. Bonner, 219. 14. Kathleen Carmel Buckingham, Jonathan Neil William David, and Paul Jepson, “Diplomats and Refugees: Panda Diplomacy, Soft ‘Cuddly’ Power, and the New Trajectory in Panda Conservation,” Environmental Practice 15.3 (2013): 263. 15. Ibid, 263. 16. Malamud, 116. 17. Figuring out the exact percentage is difficult. Wild populations are estimates based on census techniques, and the exact number

55TECHNOLOGIES OF KNOWING

ROOKSof pandas in some form of captivity is unclear. Different sources give different figures, usually falling between 300-350. It is reasonable to estimate that at least 15% of all extant pandas live in captivity. Yiming et al. suggest the percentage may be as high as 20%. See Li Yiming, Guo Zhongwei, Yang Qisen, Wang Yushan, Jari Niemela, “The Implications of Poaching for Giant Panda Conservation,” Biological Conservation 111 (2003): 135. 18. Yiming et al. argue that placing wild pandas in captivity puts strains on the viability of these wild communities in ways not dissimilar from illegal poaching (as both result in a decrease in the number of pandas in the wild). 19. “Just 10 [captive-bred] pandas have been released since 1983, and only two remain in the wild.” Buckingham et al, 266. 20. Ibid 263-264. 21. Ibid 264.22. “Beyond Cute and Cuddly,” The Australian November 17, 2007), accessed May 26, 2015, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/beyond-cute-and-cuddly/story-e6frg8gf-1111114841214. 23. Note: this was during the period when non-Chinese nations had virtually no access to real pandas because of trade restrictions. See “50 years of environmental conservation,” WWF, accessed May 26, 2015, http://wwf.panda.org/who_we_are/history/. 24. “Beyond Cute and Cuddly.”25. A newborn cub at the National Zoo was described as “fat and round, and looking like a gift-shop souvenir.” The description neatly collapses the actual animal with the commercialized version of the animal. See Michael E. Ruane, “Zoo Panda Cams Mobbed as Fans Flock to See Fatter, Furrier 8-week-old Cub,” The Washington Post, October 17, 2013, accessed May 18, 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/zoo-panda-cams-mobbed-as-fans-flock-to-see-fatter-furrier-8-week-old-cub/2013/10/17/d497afea-373c-11e3-80c6-7e6dd8d22d8f_story.html. 26. Jacqueline Klimas, “Return of ‘Panda Cam’ Engenders Great Joy at the Zoo,” The Washington Times, October 20, 2013, accessed May 17, 2015, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/20/return-of-panda-cam-engenders-great-joy-at-the-zoo/?page=all.27. Klimas quotes one commentator who fears missing the moment when the cub goes “from being extremely cute to what I call the ‘excruciatingly, painfully cute’ stage.”28. Klimas quotes another commentator who compares their deprivation to “a soldier leaving a newborn child behind at home while serving his/her country and coming back a year later to find a toddler beginning to walk and talk.”29. Mei Xiang gave birth to a cub in 2005. Subsequently, there were multiple unsuccessful artificial insemination attempts and five false pregnancies. Mei gave birth to a cub in September 2012, but it died after one week. See Michael E. Ruane, “National Zoo Goes on Round-the-Clock Giant Panda Pregnancy Watch,” The Washington Post, August 15, 2013, accessed May 24, 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/national-zoo-goes-on-round-the-clock-giant-panda-pregnancy-watch/2013/08/15/b86ba0e4-05c1-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html. 30. Ibid.31. “Aug 24, 2013,” Internet Archive Wayback Machine, http://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20130824010251/https://twitter.com/NationalZoo#. The National Zoo’s current Twitter page does not extend back far enough to include the relevant tweets from Bao Bao’s birth. 32. This footage would later become a short extracted video clip accompanying many articles on the birth. See Stefanie E. Dazio and Michael E. Ruane, “National Zoo’s Panda Mei Xiang Gives Birth,” The Washington Post, August 23, 2013, accessed May 23, 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/national-zoos-panda-in-labor/2013/08/23/98044f06-0b55-11e3-9941-6711ed662e71_story.html. 33. Ian Shapira, “Panda-Cam Addicts Can’t Stop Watching Mei Xiang Care for Her Newborn Cub,” The Washington Post, August 30, 2013, accessed May 24, 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/panda-cam-addicts-cant-stop-watching-mei-xiang-care-for-her-newborn-cub/2013/08/30/34c50134-118f-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html. Emphasis added.34. Ibid. 35. Ashley Southall, “National Zoo’s Panda Cam Returns,” The New York Times, October 17, 2013, accessed May 17, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/news/fiscal-crisis/2013/10/17/national-zoos-panda-cam-returns/?_r=0.36. Gary Dodson and Cory Murphy, “Zoo and Aquarium Webcams: An Informed View,” Zoo Biology 31 (2012): 424.37. It is likely that some would dispute the distinction I draw here, and indeed my statement is a gloss on a complex and ongoing debate. The already complicated and sensitive question of where divisions should be drawn between human and non-human animals is particularly controversial in relation to higher primates. Those interested in this element should explore the work being done by the Nonhuman Rights Project, a nonprofit pursuing full legal rights for non-human animals. At the time of this writing, Sandra’s case is ongoing and particularly compelling. Sandra is an orangutan in Argentinian zoo. The Nonhuman Rights Project is in court, arguing that Sandra shares some human rights and should therefore be freed from zoo captivity/imprisonment. 38. Owen, 30.39. Malamud, 122.40. Ibid, 122.41. Chris, 167.42. G. A. Bradshaw, Barbara Smuts, and Debra Durham, “Open Door Policy: Humanity’ Relinquishment of ‘Right to Sight’ and the Emergence of Feral Culture,” in Metamorphoses of the Zoo: Animal Encounter After Noah, ed. Ralph R. Acampora (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2010), 160.43. Ibid, 153.44. John Berger, “Why Look at Animals?” in About Looking (New York: Vintage Books, 1980), 16.

56 SPRING 2016

PANDOPTICON45. Ibid. 46. Fritz, 26. 47. Ibid, 26. 48. For example, zoo animals, including pandas, are trained to perform certain actions to enable medical procedures “using ‘operant conditioning’ techniques borrowed from performing-animal handlers [the type seen in circuses].”See Owen, 28. 49. Irus Braverman, “Seeing Zoo Animals,” in Zooland: The Institution of Captivity (Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Books, 2012), 89-90. 50. Chilla Bulbeck, “Respectful Stewardship of a Hybrid Nature: The Role of Concrete Encounters,” in Metamorphoses of the Zoo: Animal Encounter After Noah, ed. Ralph R. Acampora (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2010), 89.51. Ike Kamphof, “Linking Animal and Human Places: The Potential of Webcams for Species Companionship,” Animal Studies Journal 2.1 (2013): 86. 52. Yoram S. Carmeli, “On Human-to-Animal Communication: Biosemiotics and Folk Perceptions in Zoos and Circuses,” Semiotica 146.1/4 (2003): 57.53. This American Life covered a case in which members of a web forum were horrified by the sight of an ‘abusive mother’ osprey captured on the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s Osprey Cam. One commentator declared: “this female osprey has a serious problem and should be humanely and permanently removed from the gene pool.” For the full story, see Jonathan Menjivar, “Words of Prey,” in “If You Don’t Have Anything Nice to Say, SAY IT IN ALL CAPS,” This American Life 545, Chicago Public Media, Jan 23, 2015, http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/545/if-you-dont-have-anything-nice-to-say-say-it-in-all-caps. 54. Tema Milstein, “Nature Identification: The Power of Pointing and Naming,” Environmental Communication 5.1 (2011): 5. 55. Ibid, 13.56. Ibid, 19-20.57. Clare J.Dannenberg, Bernice L. Hausman, Heidi Y. Lawrence, & Katrina M. Powell, “The Moral Appeal of Environmental Discourses: The Implication of Ethical Rhetorics,” Environmental Communication 6.2 (2013): 212-232. 58. Scholars often cite a live stream monitoring the status of a communal coffee pot in Cambridge University as the first such feed. As mentioned earlier, the first zoo webcam appeared in 1996 and by 2003 they had begun to spread to a number of institutions. See Dodson and Murphy. 59. BBC’s landmark HD wildlife documentary miniseries Planet Earth (2006) was partially advertised based on its technological achievement. The end of episodes would feature brief vignettes focused on the challenges the crew faced capturing the program’s sublime images – including having to camp out for long periods to capture relatively brief sequences of elusive animals. One such extracted example can be seen in the promotional video: “Elusive Snow Leopard – BBC Planet Earth,” YouTube video, 1:52, posted by BBCFanable, September 23, 2011, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml5EirvID-4. 60. Gregg Mitman, Reel Nature: America’s Romance with Wildlife on Film (Seattle: U Washington P, 2009), 60.61. Ibid, 61.62. Stephen Spotte, Zoos in Postmodernism: Signs and Simulation (Madison, NJ: Farleigh Dickinson UP, 2006), 93.63. Although this does not preclude programs that center on essentially sizzle reels of (often violent) animal action. One can think of the “Air Jaws” trope of Discovery Channel’s long-running Shark Week, in which massive great white sharks propel themselves out of the water to attack prey. This might be more common in relation to animals like sharks, whose social habits, reputations, and appearance largely preclude affectionate anthropomorphization. 64. Scholars have also explored the ways in which these projections reflect and normalize contemporary human social formations, and therefore change to reflect cultural norms. 65. Bousé suggests a number of manipulations digital technology could make possible. These include shortening the distances between predators and prey in chase sequences, erasing man-made structures to enhance an artificial sense of the natural world, and increasing the number of animals present in panoramic group shots. See Derek Bousé, “Nature Designed and Composed,” in Wildlife Films (Philadelphia: U Pennsylvania P, 2000), 189.66. Fritz, 27.67. Rollin, 64-65. 68. This could have an effect not dissimilar to ‘slow cinema’ experience some ecocritical film scholars argue could foster positive ecological sensibilities. For one such discussion, readers should see Scott McDonald, “The Ecocinema Experience,” in Ecocinema Theory and Practice, ed. Stephen Rust, Salma Monani, and Sean Cubitt (New York: Routledge, 2013), 17-41. 69. Becky Ferreira, “Why the ‘Zoos of the Future’ Will Probably Be Webcams Scattered Around the World,” Motherboard – Vice, July 5, 2014, http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-webcam-zoos-of-the-future-are-adorably-voyeuristic-. 70. Bernard E. Rollin, “Through a Frame Darkly: A Phenomenological Critique of Zoos,” in Metamorphoses of the Zoo: Animal Encounter After Noah, ed. Ralph R. Acampora (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2010), 57-66.71. Ibid. 72. The same article quotes a zoo spokeswoman, who explained: “You wouldn’t put a live cam on a sloth.” See Dana Hedgpeth, “This concludes your daily naked mole-rat fix,” The Washington Post, May 27, 2013, accessed May 30, 2015. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/so-it-aint-so-no-more-live-web-camera-of-the-naked-mole-rat-says-national-zoo/2015/05/27/8e3df36a-0463-11e5-8bda-c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html. 73. Ford sponsors the Panda Cam, while Macy’s supports the lion cam. See Ibid.

57TECHNOLOGIES OF KNOWING

ROOKS74. Jan-Christopher Horak, “Wildlife Documentaries: From Classical Forms to Reality TV,” Film History 18.4 (2006), 463.75. Spotte, 16.76. Malamud, 115, emphasis added. 77. Spotte, 49.78. Ibid, 13. 79. There have been interesting experiments with the form which are setup in the wilderness, but which are presented in a way that makes the involvement of humans very obvious. The most striking example would be NRK’s Piip-Show, which featured a camera trained on a set designed to be a bird-sized coffee shop. Those interested should see my article on the show: Isaac Rooks, “Let’s See Some Tits: Norway’s Distinctly Different Web Wildlife Program,” MAS Context 22 (2014), http://www.mascontext.com/issues/22-surveillance-summer-14/lets-see-some-tits-norways-distinctly-different-web-wildlife-program/.