Are sea otters too cute for their own good? Take a look . . . .
Sea otter aesthetics was the topic of a recent lecture at our local junior college. Every year, Modesto Junior College organizes a “science colloquium” lecture series that is open to the entire community. These lectures are held on Tuesday afternoons during the spring semester. This one, entitled, “Too Cute For Their Own Good: How Sea Otter Aesthetics Have Both Helped and Hurt Conservation Efforts,” seemed like an appropriate one for my daughter to attend, even if the topic was more sophisticated than the typical primary grade-level material. So, after school, I packed Gloria and two of her friends, both six year-old boys, with me to this lecture. I had several reasons for doing so.
First, I wanted Gloria to experience “college”. Growing up in Chico – a “college town” – I had almost daily conscious and subconscious exposure to college life. My parents never told me that I had to go to college. I grew up surrounded by college students, campus gardens and sculptures, college arts’ programs and performances. College was always exciting, attractive, and interesting. I wanted that life for myself and I began imagining that as my future. I want my children – all children – to imagine that for themselves too.
Second, I wanted Gloria to have the fun of sharing this new and different experience with her peers. I imagined them comparing notes afterwards and hoped it might create some fun memories for the three of them. I also wanted to give to my friends’ children the exposure to college life that I was giving to Gloria, and for the same reason – to begin the process of guiding them toward envisioning a future in higher education for themselves.
Finally, I took them because the topic seemed approachable and the children are currently studying the ocean and its flora and fauna, so it seemed a timely opportunity to make the trip to campus. As a safeguard, I brought drawing paper and colored pens, so the children could take notes, draw pictures of what they were seeing and hearing, or simply doodle if they became bored. I was so pleased with the outing. All three children behaved beautifully. The pictures they drew were delightful – oceans, sea otters, boats, bridges – they were inspired!
The most novel idea Dr. Ravalli introduced during his lecture was that, in his opinion, the sea otters’ “cuteness” is a mixed blessing because it tends to cause humans to both anthropomorphize and romanticize the animals, which leads to “objectification” and also tends to minimize the historic slaughter and other modern challenges otters have and continue to endure. I later asked him to expand on this idea - I asked if the “object“ (in this case sea otters) is inevitably harmed by this process of “objectification.” In other words, do my ideas and feelings harm sea otters if they do not result in objectively harmful behavior? It seems to me if people think the otters are cute and lovable, they are more likely to spend money on products that support otter research and conservation efforts, which would benefit the otters, not harm them. Dr. Ravalli agreed that he was “making a more subtle argument” - that it is always harmful on some level to objectify a living thing. I grasp that concept, but I am not convinced that the mere objectification of the sea otter has harmed conservation efforts. Nevertheless, the idea led me to reflect on whether I ever objectify my own children, and if so, does that harm them? I think it is human nature to objectify others (and even ourselves) from time to time, and I do not believe my occasional objectification of my children harms them, unless it leads me to act in a way that is hurtful or contrary to their best interests. However, if/when I objectify my children, or otters, or any living thing, I believe that I “harm” myself, because in doing so I limit the possibilities of my understanding of the “other” and their experiences; I will be more likely to project, over-generalize, over-simplify, and deny myself the opportunity to learn and grow because objectification blocks relationship; thus, I will limit the kind and depth of relationship I can have with them, and each of them with me. Deep stuff. Perhaps it is time for me to re-read Martin Buber’s “I and Thou.”[1]
At the end of the lecture, Gloria handed me a paper with the following notes:
“There are more sea otters then 100.”
“Some are big. Some are small.”
“Sea otters drink milk from there mom.”
“lotts of people like to cill sea otters.”
“Sea otters are wied [wild] animils.”
“Some people cill sea otters because they wont to make cootts [coats].”
Needless to say, I was pleased. We ate a snack outside and then explored the campus. The children were in joy space.
[1] In “I and Thou,” Martin Buber introduced his thesis on human existence. He explained this philosophy using the word pairs of “Ich-Du” and “Ich-Es” to categorize the modes of consciousness, interaction, and being through which an individual engages with other individuals, inanimate objects, and all reality in general. Ich-Du ("I-Thou" or "I-You") is a relationship that stresses the mutual, holistic existence of two beings. It is a concrete encounter, because these beings meet one another in their authentic existence, without any qualification or objectification of one another. Even imagination and ideas do not play a role in this relation. Common English words used to describe the Ich-Du relationship include encounter, meeting, dialogue, mutuality, and exchange. The Ich-Es ("I-It") relationship is nearly the opposite of Ich-Du. Whereas in Ich-Du the two beings encounter one another, in an Ich-Es relationship the beings do not actually meet. Instead, the "I" confronts and qualifies an idea, or conceptualization, of the being in its presence and treats that being as an object. Therefore, the Ich-Es relationship is in fact a relationship with oneself; it is not a dialogue, but a monologue. In the Ich-Es relationship, an individual treats other things, people, etc., as objects to be used and experienced. Essentially, this form of objectivity relates to the world in terms of the self - how an object can serve the individual’s interest. Buber argued that human life consists of an oscillation between Ich-Du and Ich-Es, and that in fact Ich-Du experiences are rather few and far between. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Buber.
