This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

Micro-Landscapes of the Anthropocene

Ashleigh- note 3

Sometimes the symbols we associate with something can be more powerful than the thing itself. I completely agree with the birds-atmosphere group, in their assessment that the concept of symbolification can be problematic and dangerous for the subject, due to the removal of its innate identity.
In his text 'Clockwork and the Symbolization of Time', Halevi discusses the quality of 'place-taking', which is the replacement of some "signified entity" through symbolism. Place-taking occurs in all facets of life and for all entities that are observed by humanity. It is our nature to reinterpret what we see, so as to make sense of our existence, and drawing connections makes this process easier.
Death, for instance, is symbolised through a number of motifs (ravens, the colour black, etc), but is itself symbolic of our fear of our own mortality, in the way we perceive it as a conclusive ending. However, death is only the last chapter if we are the only characters in the story. Similarly, extinctions are increasingly coming to symbolise our own failure as a species, in our inability to conserve life around us.

"The link between a symbol and that which is symbolised or signified is always determined by a concept or some larger structural framework by virtue of which symbols are able to evoke a certain state of comprehension" (Halevi, 1995 pp. 5).

As Helevi states, there are interactions in the nature of symbolism itself. Symbols must interact and engage with a broader social or cultural setting to persist in a constantly changing world. We may make an object or creature a symbol, and the act of doing so enables us to comprehend it in a new way. Humanity actively mimics the the natural interactions we observe in the world around us. Like an excited, yet clumsy child, we attempt to partake in the act of connecting the world through the association of symbolism, but inevitably fall short, and end up robbing our subjects of their autonomous being.

Halevi, S. M. (1995). Clockwork and the Symbolisation of Time. American Journal of Psychoanalysis. 55(1):1-26

This page is referenced by:

Concept: Symbolification
Symbolification : The process by which historical literary interpretation reduces an otherwise multifaceted ‘subject’ into an ‘object’, by way of using it only to signify something else.

Example: the symbolification of the dove: the dove is equated with peace symbolically, and thus we have ‘symbolified’ it. It has been reduced to a sort of icon that signifies something it is not, therefore objectifying the creature and detracting from its subjective existence.

This thought arose after discussing and considering the concept of ‘charismatic megafauna’, which is a term used in conservation to denote a creature with enough of a popular presence to gain a following for conservation efforts. An animal such as a lion or polar bear easily gains the public’s attention, and by association, gains funding and support. I considered the plight of many “unattractive” animals, and the struggle for conservationists to make them ‘marketable’, as it were. From this I tried to narrow my thinking towards avians, and their social reception. Birds are often viewed as things of beauty to be watched or listened to in wonder, which would explain their overwhelming presence in poetry. I wondered if poetry and the Canon’s avian literary presence didn’t do a disservice to birds, considering concerns of objectifying sentient creatures, and of course the ethical considerations of the eco-critical lens.

Arguably, representing a bird as a symbol for another thing detracts from the bird itself, and leads by its very nature to an anthropocentric interpretation of the meaning of the bird. As eco-critics then, perhaps it is our job to ‘de-symbolify’ not just the bird, but other creatures in literature. By removing the romantic notion of the bird, will we also remove our rose-tinted glasses further and look more towards the reality of the struggle our natural world faces? But no, ignoring the many diverse cultural symbols tied up in literary representations of the natural world would do a disservice to the work itself, as well as the lineage it is drawing from.

Instead, rather than suggesting that there is something inherently wrong with using animals symbolically, I would argue that it is our responsibility to be aware of the symbolic nature of many representations of non-human life, and to have the ability to look past this and consider the ‘subjectivity’ of these creatures in more depth. Instead of simply overlooking the historical interpretations, we should acknowledge them, but also offer an alternative narrative to the accepted reading of particular works. In doing so, we may encourage a deeper discourse around the rights of the animal ‘subject’, rather than simply allowing these creatures to remain symbolic ‘objects’ in our cultural imaginations.

Related reading:

Orr, Yancey. "Animal Magnetism: Perceiving Environmental Objects as Social Subjects among Balinese Looking at Roosters." Visual Anthropology 28.2 (2015): 127-36. Web.

Orton, David. "Both Subject and Object: Herding, Inalienability and Sentient Property in Prehistory." World Archaeology 42.2 (2010): 188-200. Web.

Skibins, Jeffrey, C. Powell, and Robert Hallo. "Charisma and Conservation: Charismatic Megafauna’s Influence on Safari and Zoo Tourists’ Pro-conservation Behaviors." Biodiversity and Conservation 22.4 (2013): 959-82. Web.

Small, Ernest. "The New Noah's Ark: Beautiful and Useful Species Only. Part 2. The Chosen Species." Biodiversity 13.1 (2012): 37-53. Web.

Weinfield, Henry. "A. D. Hope's 'The Death of the Bird': Between Romantic Symbol and Modernist Anti-symbol." Southerly 68.3 (2008): 161-71. Web.