This page was created by Alison Morgan.
Article Summary by Cayla W.
She opens the article stating her main claims before moving to the next section of defining terms. This is where Scott clarifies what she means when she uses the terms, “dominion,” “kingdom,” and “hyperreal,” throughout the article. She uses a number of biblical passages to further her argument and point out the similarities between DAK and man’s dominance over the world. Scott describes the hyperreal nature of the theme park, as “a melding of fantasy and reality. It is an airbrushed simulation of reality, a reproduction with embellishments” (Scott, 112). She also relies on author, Jean Baudrillard, in this section. Baudrillard’s texts support Scott’s claim; essentially, when people have and hyperreal interactions, they “experience the real, but merely consume the hyperreal” (112). Other articles and authors are used throughout to further the argument that DAK is more fake than real. An article from the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, and Umberto Eco discuss how the training of the safari animals is an unnatural element in a natural habitat. Authors Karen Jones, and John Wills point out the fact that the fake elements of DAK are more willingly consumed and believed to be better than the real.
The next section is called “Teaching Our Children.” This portion discusses the dramatization and juxtaposition of how the natural world is portrayed to the next generation, children. This continues Scott’s main claim; teaching these ideas to children will only cause the notion that nature exists in order to benefit mankind to last for decades. Here, she also defines the five different categories of anthropomorphism as allegorical anthropomorphism, personification, superficial anthropomorphism, explanatory anthropomorphism, and applied anthropomorphism. The main support of this section comes from the park’s Guide map. The park’s main claim, The Tree of Life, is not a living tree at all, and the kid-friendly attractions throughout DAK are a false reality of how animals and nature interact in the natural environment.
Scott’s next two sections continue to claim DAK uses fake elements to portray the natural order of the world. The analysis of the live show, “Flights of Wonder,” argues that the actions the birds perform do not actually represent how they interact with their natural ecosystem. Scott believes the, “flying, grabbing, and playing are natural bird activities, but the props (camera, cash, and toy) used to make these actions more entertaining are foreign to the birds in the wild,” (117). The motions are real, but these animals are train and perform with objects they would never naturally see. This point articulates Scott’s main claim that humans uses these techniques as a means of dominion. The section on “Mimesis in Kilimanjaro Safaris” furthers these claims. Many of the attractions’ features are completely false. All these flora and fauna were brought in out of their habitat, and elements such as, “potholes have been intentionally created for the sake of authenticity,” (119). This is where Scott conveys the argument that DAK is more concerned with a theatrical performance rather than the actual conservation of these natural beings. Disney even destroyed thousands of acres of the landscape just to create the park.
Scott’s final statement focuses around the idea that the animals only represent a shell of what they truly are. Rather than discussing the complex material of conservation, DAK dumbs down the relationship between humans and Earth’s ecosystems. Scott uses Bob Mullan and Garry Marvin’s book, Zoo Culture: The Book about Watching People Watch Animals, to claim that animals cannot represent themselves, so they are only a reflection of their wild identity. Humans determine the animal qualities we know. This is described with the analogy that DAK and similar parks are prisons where animals are discussed by what they would be capable of doing on the outside, the wild.
Scott’s main argument focuses on how humans interact with nature, and her multiple sources back her claims. Many fake elements are inserted to create a more exciting environment rather than focus of the conservation and sustainability of all ecosystems. Her interpretation of the relationship between man and beast has mankind at the head suppressing all other natural beings. DAK is not as real as any Guide map claims. Humans dominate nature, and in this case, the Disney Corporation is the king of the jungle.
Scott, Shelly R. "Conserving, Consuming, and Improving on Nature at Disney's Animal
Kingdom." MLA International Bibliography [EBSCO]. N.p., Sept. 2007. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.
