Year 2019, Volume , Issue 31, Pages 9 - 33 2019-12-28

Normalizing Human-Animal Power Relations Through Media: Zoo discourses in Turkey
NORMALISER LES RELATIONS DE POUVOIR ENTRE HUMAIN-ANIMAL PAR LE BIAIS DES MÉDIAS : LE DISCOURS DES ZOOS EN TURQUIE
Normalizing Human-Animal Power Relations Through Media: Zoo discourses in Turkey

Sezen ERGİN ZENGİN [1]


This study examines zoo discourses on media as a convenient site for probing into human-animal power relations. A form of critical discourse analysis is carried out in national daily news discourse focusing on how zoo discourses portray animals through lexical choices, grammatical structures, and discursive strategies of capitalism, hospitality, and conservation. These strategies overall operate to conceal the domination, oppression, and suffering of captive wild animals behind the benevolent image of the zoo institution promoting conservation, education, and recreation. Through language, animals are constructed, on a superficial level, as subjects who enjoy their lives on natural habitats with their families. Yet further analysis reveals a power abuse in which animals are objectified and commodified for an exclusively human agenda. The study concludes that through the naturalizing effect of discourses human dominance over wild animals are never questioned and the zoos grant animals an instrumental value rather than inherent value. 

Dans ce travail, les discours des zoos dans les médias sont étudiés en tant qu’un domaine approprié afin d’approfondir les relations de pouvoir homme-animal. Une forme de l’analyse critique du discours est effectuée dans les discours de la presse quotidienne nationale sur comment les discours des zoos représentent les animaux à travers les choix lexicaux, les structures grammaticales ainsi que les stratégies discursives telles que le capitalisme, l’hospitalité et la sauvegarde. Dans l’ensemble, ces stratégies fonctionnent pour cacher la domination, l’oppression et les souffrances des animaux sauvages derrière l’image bienveillante des institutions zoologiques qui promeuvent la sauvegarde, l’éducation et la récréation. A un niveau superficiel, les animaux sont construits par la langue comme des sujets qui apprécient leurs vies dans leurs habitats naturels avec leurs familles. Or, les analyses plus approfondies révèlent un abus de pouvoir dans lequel les animaux sont objectivés et transformés en un programme exclusivement humain. Ce travail conclut qu’en raison de naturalisation des discours,la dominance humaine sur les animaux sauvages n’est jamais remise en cause et les zoos donnent aux animaux une valeur instrumentale plutôt qu'une valeur inhérente.

Bu çalışma, medyadaki hayvanat bahçesi söylemlerini incelemektedir zira bu söylem, insan-hayvan arasındaki iktidar ilişkilerini araştırmak için uygun bir alan olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Çalışma, ulusal günlük haber söyleminde hayvanat bahçesi söylemleri üzerine bir eleştirel söylem analizi uygulamakta ve özellikle hayvanların, kelime seçimleri, dilbilgisel yapılar ile kapitalizm, misafirperverlik ve koruma gibi söylemsel stratejiler yoluyla nasıl resmedildiğine bakmaktadır. Bu stratejiler temelde hayvanat bahçesi kurumunun koruma, eğitim ve eğlenceyi görev edinen yardımsever imajının arkasında esir yabani hayvanların tahakkümünü, baskılarını ve acılarını gizlemek için kullanılır. Dil aracılığıyla hayvanlar, yüzeysel olarak, aileleriyle birlikte doğal ortamlarında hayatlarının tadını çıkaran özneler olarak inşa edilir. Ancak, detaylı analizler hayvanların, insanlar lehine konular etrafında nesnelleştirildiği ve metalaştırıldığı bir güç istismarı ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma, söylemlerin doğallaştırıcı etkisiyle, yabani hayvanlar üzerindeki insan egemenliğinin hiçbir zaman sorgulanmadığı ve hayvanat bahçelerinin hayvanlara içkin bir değerden ziyade araçsal bir değer verdikleri sonucuna varmaktadır.

 

  • Acampora, R. R. (Ed.). (2010). Metamorphoses of the Zoo: Animal Encounter After Noah. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books.
  • Albornoz, L. A. (Ed.), Barnett, I. (Trans.). (2015). Power, Media, Culture: A Critical View from the Political Economy of Communication. Houndmills, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Almiron, N., Cole, M., & Freeman, C. P. (Eds.). (2015). Critical Animal and Media Studies: Communication for Nonhuman Animal Advocacy. New York: Routledge.
  • Almiron, N. (2017). Beyond Anthropocentrism: Critical Animal Studies and the Political Economy of Communication. The Political Economy of Communication, 4(2). Retrieved from http://www.polecom.org/index.php/polecom/article/view/71
  • Altuğ Turan, İ., & Malkoç True, E. (2017). Kentsel Bir Dış Mekân Olarak Hayvanat Bahçeleri: Türkiye’den Öne Çıkan Örnekler. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2), 23–28.
  • Anderson, K. (1998). Animal Domestication in Geographic Perspective. Society and Animals, 6(2), 119–135.
  • Andersson Cederholm, E., Björck, A., Jennbert, K., & Lönngren, A. S. (2014). Exploring the animal turn: human-animal relations in science, society and culture. Lund: Pufendorfinstitutet.
  • Association of Zoos & Aquariums. (n.d.). Homepage. Retrieved June 2, 2019, from https://www.aza.org/
  • Best, S. (n.d.). Zoos and the End of Nature. Retrieved June 3, 2019, from http://www.drstevebest.org/ZoosAndTheEnd.htm
  • Best, S., J Nocella, A., Kahn, R., Gigliotti, C., & Kemmerer, L. (2007). Introducing Critical Animal Studies. Journal for Critical Animal Studies, 5.
  • Bostock, S. S. C. (2003). Zoos and Animal Rights: The Ethics of Keeping Animals. London; New York: Routledge.
  • Braverman, I. (2013). Zooland: The Institution of Captivity. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook?sid=e634ba3e-b081-4c49-9758-a87b375750c1%40sessionmgr4007&vid=0&format=EK
  • Bryant, C. D. (1979). The Zoological Connection: Animal-Related Human Behavior. Social Forces, 58(2), 399.
  • Casamitjana, J. (2003). Enclosure Size in Captive Wild Mammals: A Comparison Between Uk Zoological Collections and the Wild. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265044781_ENCLOSURE_SIZE_IN_CAPTIVE_WILD_MAMMALS_A_comparison_between_UK_zoological_collections_and_the_wild
  • DeMello, M. (2012). Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Dunayer, J. (2001). Animal Equality: Language and Liberation. Derwood: Lantern Books.
  • European Association of Zoos and Aquaria. (n.d.). Homepage. Retrieved June 7, 2019, from https://www.eaza.net/j
  • Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. New York: Longman.
  • Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. London: Arnold.
  • Fairclough, N. (2000). Language and Neo-Liberalism. Discourse & Society, 11(2), 147–148.
  • Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. Retrieved from http://www.dawsonera.com/depp/reader/protected/external/AbstractView/S9780203697078
  • Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979). Language and Control. Routledge & K. Paul.
  • Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London; New York: Routledge.
  • Francione, G. L. (2000). Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  • Freeman, C. P. (2009). This Little Piggy Went to Press: The American News Media’s Construction of Animals in Agriculture. The Communication Review, 12(1), 78–103.
  • Glenn, C. B. (2004). Constructing Consumables and Consent: A Critical Analysis of Factory Farm Industry Discourse. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 28(1), 63–81.
  • Goatly, A. (2000). Critical Reading and Writing: An Introductory Coursebook. London; New York: Routledge.
  • Gruen, L. (2018). Incarceration, Liberty, and Dignity. In A. Linzey & C. Linzey (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Practical Animal Ethics (pp. 153–163). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Günergun, F. (2006). Türkiye’de Hayvanat Bahçeleri Tarihine Giriş. In A. Özen (Ed.), I. Ulusal Veteriner Hekimliği Tarihi ve Mesleki Etik Sempozyumu Bildirileri (pp. 185–218).
  • Hall, S., Hobson, D., Lowe, A., & Willis, P. (Eds.). (1980). Culture, Media, Language Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972-79. London; New York: Routledge.
  • Hall, S. (1982). The Rediscovery of “Ideology”: Return of the Repressed in Media Studies. In T. Bennett, J. Curran, M. Gurevitch, & J. Wollacott (Eds.), Culture, Society and the Media (pp. 52–86). Retrieved from http://qut.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=242285
  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3 edition). London; New York: Hodder Education Publishers.
  • Hallman, B. C., & Benbow, M. (2006). Canadian Human Landscape Examples: Naturally cultural: the zoo as cultural landscape. The Canadian Geographer/Le Geographe Canadien, 50(2), 256–264.
  • Hardy, J. (2014). Critical Political Economy of the Media: An Introduction. London; New York: Routledge.
  • Hartmann, P. G., & Husband, C. (1974). Racism and the Mass Media: A Study of the Role of the Mass Media in the Formation of White Beliefs and Attitudes in Britain. London: Davis-Poynter.
  • Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books.
  • Hodge, R. I. V., & Kress, G. R. (1993). Language as Ideology (2nd ed.). London; New York: Routledge.
  • Horta, O. (2010). What is Speciesism. J Agric Environ Ethics, 23, 243–266.
  • Jamieson, D. (2006). Against Zoos. In P. Singer (Ed.), In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave (pp. 132-143). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
  • Kemmerer, L. (2010). Nooz: Ending Zoo Exploitation. In R. R. Acampora (Ed.), Metamorphoses of the Zoo: Animal Encounter After Noah (pp. 37–56). Lanham: Lexington Books.
  • Khazaal, N., & Almiron, N. (2016). “An Angry Cow Is Not a Good Eating Experience”: How Us and Spanish Media Are Shifting from Crude to Camouflaged Speciesism in Concealing Nonhuman Perspectives. Journalism Studies, 17(3), 374–391.
  • Kruse, C. R. (2002). Social animals: Animal studies and sociology. Society and Animals, 10(4), 375–380.
  • Lamont, D. (2019, April 12). Beyond the Zoo: How Captivity Affects the Mental Well-Being of All Animals. Retrieved June 13, 2019, from One Green Planet website: https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/how-captivity-effects-the-mental-well-being-of-all-animals
  • Lee, K. (2005). Zoos: A Philosophical Tour. Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Malamud, R. (1998). Reading Zoos: Representations of Animals and Captivity. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.
  • Margodt, K. (2010). Zoos as Welfare Arks? Reflections on an Ethical Course for Zoos. In R. R. Acampora (Ed.), Metamorphoses of the Zoo: Animal Encounter After Noah (pp. 11–36). Lanham: Lexington Books.
  • Mayr, A. (2008). Language and Power: An Introduction to Institutional Discourse. London; New York: Continuum.
  • Milstein, T. (2009). “Somethin’ Tells Me It’s All Happening at the Zoo”: Discourse, Power, and Conservationism1. Environmental Communication, 3(1), 25–48.
  • Milstein, T. (2013). Banging on the Divide: Cultural Reflection and Refraction at the Zoo. In E. Plec (Ed.), Perspectives on Human-animal Communication: Internatural Communication (pp. 162–181). New York; London: Routledge.
  • Mitchell, L. (2006). Animals and the Discourse of Farming in Southern Africa. Society & Animals, 14(1), 39–59.
  • Molloy, C. (2011). Popular Media and Animals. Basingstoke ; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Montford, K. S. (2016). Dehumanized Denizens, Displayed Animals: Prison Tourism and the Discourse of the Zoo. PhiloSOPHIA, 6(1), 73–91.
  • Morin, K. M. (2015). Wildspace: The cage, the supermax, and the zoo. In R.-C. Collard & K. Gillespie (Eds.), Critical Animal Geographies: Politics, intersections, and hierarchies in a multispecies world (pp. 73–91). Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge.
  • Mullan, B., & Marvin, G. (1987). Zoo Culture. Urbana, Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
  • Myers, O. E. (2003). No Longer the Lonely Species: A Post‐Mead Perspective on Animals and Sociology. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23(3), 46–68.
  • Nibert, D. (2002). Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  • Nocella II, A. J., Sorenson, J., Socha, K., & Matsuoka, A. (Eds.). (2013). Defining Critical Animal Studies: An Intersectional Social Justice Approach for Liberation. New York: Peter Lang Inc.
  • Noske, B. (1997). Beyond Boundaries. Montreal, New York, London: Black Rose Books.
  • Özen, A. S. (2016). Türkiye’de B Grubu Hayvanat Bahçeleri ve Akvaryumların Durumu. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 36, 8.
  • Patrick, P. G., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2013). Zoo Talk. Dordrecht; New York: Springer.
  • Regan, T. (2004). The Case for Animal Rights (Updated ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Ritvo, H. (1990). The Animal Estate: The English and Other Creatures in the Victorian Age. London: Penguin.
  • Sayers, D. O. (2014). The Most Wretched of Beings in the Cage of Capitalism. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 18(3), 529–554.
  • Sealey, A., & Oakley, L. (2013). Anthropomorphic Grammar? Some Linguistic Patterns in the Wildlife Documentary Series Life. Text & Talk, 33(3).
  • Singer, P. (2009). Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
  • Smart, A. (2014). Critical Perspectives on Multispecies Ethnography. Critique of Anthropology, 34(1), 3–7.
  • Stibbe, A. (2001). Language, power and the social construction of animals. Society & Animals, 9(2), 145–161.
  • Stibbe, A. (2006). Deep Ecology and Language: The Curtailed Journey of the Atlantic Salmon. Society & Animals, 14(1), 61–77.
  • Stibbe, A. (2012). Today We Live Without Them: The Erasure of Animals and Plants in the Language of Ecosystem Assessment. ECOS, 33(1), 47–53.
  • Stibbe, A. (2015). Ecolinguistics: Language, Ecology and the Stories We Live By. London; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı’ndan geyik ihalesi: Vurulmak için açık artırmayla satışa çıkartıldı. (2019, May 27). Retrieved June 5, 2019, from http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/turkiye/1412277/Tarim_ve_Orman_Bakanligi_ndan_geyik_ihalesi__Vurulmak_icin_acik_artirmayla_satisa_cikartildi.html
  • Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı’nın ’geyik ihalesi’ne mahkeme “dur” dedi. (2019, May 31). Retrieved June 5, 2019, from http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/turkiye/1420432/Tarim_ve_Orman_Bakanligi_nin__geyik_ihalesi_ne_mahkeme__dur__dedi.html
  • Taylor, N. (2012). Humans, Animals, and Society: An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies. New York: Lantern Books.
  • This zoo is ‘hell on Earth.’ (2016, February 25). Retrieved June 6, 2019, from New York Post website: https://nypost.com/2016/02/25/zoo-animals-are-starving-to-death-in-this-war-zone/
  • Top Sites in Turkey - Alexa. (n.d.). Retrieved June 16, 2019, from https://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/TR
  • Torres, B. (2007). Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights. Oakland, Edinburgh, West Virginia: AK Press.
  • van Dijk, T. A. (1991). Racism and the Press. London; New York: Routledge.
  • van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as Interaction in Society. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction (pp. 1–37). London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: SAGE.
  • van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London; Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  • van Dijk, T. A. (2000). Ideology and Discourse: A Multidisciplinary Introduction.
  • van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Waldau, P. (2013). Animal Studies: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Weitzenfeld, A., & Joy, M. (2014). An Overview of Anthropocentrism, Humanism, and Speciecism in Critical Animal Theory. In A. J. Nocella II, J. Sorenson, K. Socha, & A. Matsuoka (Eds.), Defining Critical Animal Studies: An Intersectional Social Justice Approach for Liberation. New York: Peter Lang Inc.
  • Wodak, R. (Ed.). (1989). Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2001). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London; Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
  • Yaban Hayatı Dairesi - Belge, Bilgi, Haber, Duyuru Köşesi. (n.d.). Retrieved June 7, 2019, from Doğa Koruma ve Milli Parklar Genel Müdürlüğü website: http://www3.milliparklar.gov.tr/AnaSayfa/yabanHayatiDairesi/yh_belgeler.aspx?sflang=tr
  • Yılmaz, İ. G. (2017, April 2). Fikir Karargahı – Türkiye’deki Günlük Gazeteler ve Haber Sitelerine Dair Sayısal/ Siyasal Veriler. Retrieved June 8, 2019, from Fikir Karargahı website: http://www.fikirkarargahi.com/turkiyede-gunluk-gazeteler-ve-haber-sitelerine-dair-sayisal-veriler/
Primary Language en
Subjects Social
Published Date kış
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Orcid: 0000-0001-5927-5357
Author: Sezen ERGİN ZENGİN (Primary Author)
Institution: Hacettepe Üniversitesi
Country: Turkey


Dates

Publication Date : December 28, 2019

APA ERGİN ZENGİN, S . (2019). Normalizing Human-Animal Power Relations Through Media: Zoo discourses in Turkey. Galatasaray Üniversitesi İletişim Dergisi , (31) , 9-33 . Retrieved from http://iletisimdergisi.gsu.edu.tr/en/issue/50847/580339