Knowledge

Introduction

Contestations over knowledge by different actors underpins the complexities of nature-society relationships. In this final blogpost, I address the role of knowledge regarding cetacean captivity in society’s drive for cetacean protection.

Cetacean Captivity – for Science, Conservation, Protection and Funds

Cetacean captivity sites commodify nature and normalize human superiority. However, media representations promoting cetacean freedom such as Blackfish (2013) and Free Willy (1993) – which was ironically portrayed by a captive orca – have ingrained new use values for cetaceans in the Anthropocene (Neo and Ngiam, 2014). Today, cetaceans are regarded by scientists and urban dwellers as high value (emotional, economic and scientific) commodities to be protected at all cost from harmful unnatural captivity as shown in the video below.

Despite overwhelming global resistance to captivity, concerns over global “ecological crisis”, cetacean preservation, and funding “conservation research” legitimizes such actions. Wild cetaceans are thus constructed as vulnerable and needing captivity.

While dangers of hydrocarbons are obvious, waste – mostly plastics – from urban centres find its way into oceans and pose real hazards to cetacean life. Oceanic gyres congregate large amounts of plastic into garbage patches that coincides with cetacean migratory routes which eventually get ingested by them.

Image 1: Left: Distribution of gyres and garbage patches (CityLab, 2016). Top Right: Plastics found in the stomach of a minke whale, which might have mistaken the debris as food. (Mail Online, 2008). Bottom Right: Plastic bag entangling a dolphin (EIA International, n.d.).

Food security concerns in urban centres have also implicated cetaceans, like dolphins, in supertrawler gillnets (Lewison et al, 2004). Unsustainable urban consumption patterns of seafood and plastic, and its resulting flotilla waste (mercury and dioxins included), solidifies the argument for captivity.

Image 2: Hector Dolphins caught within gillnets because of industrial fishing aimed at meeting demands of urban populations. (Hectordolphin.com, n.d.).

Hence, contamination of “pristine” nature becomes a key argument that proponents of captivity have employed to buttress their claims for safety and science within tanks given the dangers of the wild (Neo and Ngiam, 2014). Therefore, human activities that infringe into, and circulate debris in oceans reduces the possibility of in situ captivity – intertwining “natural” ocean ecosystems with urban activities.

Forgotten cetaceans – those that dwell outside normative concepts of “whales and dolphins”

Also seen in the video, captivity is afforded to popular tameable cetaceans, like orcas and bottlenose, due to economic rewards. In comparison, Irrawaddy dolphins are much more vulnerable and can go extinct should hydropower plans, constitutive of urban energy security agendas, concretize their freshwater riverine home in the Mekong (IUCN, n.d.). However, governments and captivity centres pay little attention to scientific knowledge produced to protect the Irrawaddy.

Image 3: Governments in favour of “green” hydropower dam construction (Grundy-Warr, GE4232 Lecture Slides, 2016).

Often, knowledge that contributes to “sustainability” and economic growth is valued over conservation science. Thus, biasness in global captivity sites reinforces productions of (specific) popular knowledges – revolving around normative ideas of interactive cetaceans – that possess valuable economic value. This condemns popular cetaceans to unnatural spaces that alter their natures (Neo and Ngiam, 2014) and similarly, condemning unpopular cetaceans to ever-increasing degradation of marine spaces. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Conclusion – what does it mean for cetaceans?

To conclude, human-cetacean relationships globally is predominantly focused on commoditization. Cetaceans are merely numbers to the IUCN, Icelandic whale watching companies, Greenpeace, marine captive sites and urban humans (Brakes and Bass, 2011). Cetacean knowledges are produced with the intent of capitalising on these numbers – to increase tourism sales, reduce fatalities, conserve numbers and so on.

Despite urban emotions, cultures and knowledges that recognize and revere cetaceans as “humanlike”, humans still perceive cetaceans to be outside their sphere of existence. If cetaceans were humans, protection efforts would not revolve around commoditization ideas of eco-tourism or marine parks, as it would be “inhumane”. Newell’s assertion that capitalism “is taken as a background ‘given’” (2014: 5) enforces that cetaceans are merely components of the global neoliberal economy. Human-cetacean relationships in the past three blogposts are (re)produced by capitalism. To rely on capitalism as a framework in resolving issues merely shifts environmental devastation elsewhere. Getting to the crux of such global environmental problems means revolutionizing current systems supporting our daily lives.

[571 Words]

References

Brakes, P. and Bass, C. (2011). From Conservation to Protection: Charting a New Conservation Ethic for Cetaceans. In: P. Brakes and M. Simmonds, ed., Whales and Dolphins: Cognition, Culture, Conservation and Human Perceptions, 1st ed. London: Earthscan, pp.179-187.

CityLab. (2016). Watch How Five Great Garbage Patches Float Around the World. [online] Available at: http://www.citylab.com/weather/2016/07/ocean-garbage-patches-animation-model-noaa/493007/ [Accessed 30 Oct. 2016].

EIA International. (2015). Stemming the tide of plastic bags choking the world's oceans – EIA International. [online] Available at: https://eia-international.org/stemming-the-tide-of-plastic-bags-choking-the-worlds-oceans [Accessed 29 Oct. 2016].

Hector's and Maui's Dolphin SOS. (n.d.). Harmful Fishing Methods. [online] Available at: http://www.hectorsdolphins.com/harmful-fishing-methods.html [Accessed 30 Oct. 2016].

Iucnredlist.org. (n.d.). Orcaella brevirostris (Irrawaddy Dolphin, Snubfin Dolphin). [online] Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/15419/0 [Accessed 29 Oct. 2016].

Lewison, R., Crowder, L., Read, A. and Freeman, S. (2004). Understanding impacts of fisheries bycatch on marine megafauna. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19(11), pp.598-604.

Mail Online. (2008). Banish the bags: The amazing picture of 2lb of plastic poison found in whale's stomach. [online] Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-519832/Banish-bags-The-amazing-picture-2lb-plastic-poison-whales-stomach.html [Accessed 29 Oct. 2016].

Neo, H. and Ngiam, J. (2014). Contesting captive cetaceans: (il)legal spaces and the nature of dolphins in urban Singapore. Social & Cultural Geography, 15(3), pp.235-254.

Newell, P. (2011). The elephant in the room: Capitalism and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), pp.4-6.

World Wildlife Fund. (n.d.). Irrawaddy Dolphin | Species | WWF. [online] Available at: http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/irrawaddy-dolphin [Accessed 29 Oct. 2016].

YouTube. (2014). Fate of orcas in captivity at SeaWorld and other marine parks. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-dEC3p4xDw&list=WL&index=8 [Accessed 30 Oct. 2016].

Tourism

In my previous entry, I have shown how emotions contribute to global clashes with regard to cetaceans. These emotions have manifested in a lucrative global tourism industry.

Whale Watching – the Iceland Experience

The whale watching industry in Iceland is booming thanks to increasing transport connectivity. This converts local natural spaces in Iceland into sites of economic activity – reflecting Harvey’s proposition that nature gets “appropriated [for] the purposes and paths of capital accumulation” (2006). This commodifies cetaceans into economic units to generate income and development for locals.

Arguably, whales occupy a high status in the spatial ordering of animals and hence, humans relax their boundaries slightly allowing for more intimate relations. The positive reactions (and money) extracted from tourism highlights the utilitarian value whales have to Icelanders. The intimacy with whales reinforces wild imaginings of Iceland, increasing its global popularity for living and non-living nature (as seen below).

Image 1: Whale watching tours that are combined with non-living nature, promoting a uniquely Icelandic experience (Top: Grayline.is, Bottom: Elding.is). Priced at SGD 225 and SGD 120 respectively.

However, raw untamed Iceland Experience also brings the booming whale watching industry in conflict with “traditional” whaling industries. The border between Reykjavik’s whale watching sanctuary in Faxafloi Bay and whaling zones are far too close with little buffer, sometimes resulting in an even more authentic “Nordic” experience for tourists.

Image 2: Excerpt from an article detailing conflicts and reactions from tourists of the, unfortunate, incident. (Adapted from Iceland Review, 2015)

The transformation of whale spaces into sites of competition between the global (tourists) and the local (whalers) presents competing narratives between different cultural knowledges of nature. Popular ideas and emotions puts Icelandic whaling under pressure from global communities with arguments regarding proper treatment of whales.

Paradoxically, tourist misconception of Iceland’s Nordic wildness and “cultural tradition” of eating whale meat drives demand and lends legitimacy to Hvalur, Iceland’s only whaling company, as seen in 1:27 (Actman, 2016). In a political economic setting, it makes commercial, and increasingly nationalistic (seen at 1:42), sense to supply for tourist demand. Despite efforts from Icewhale.is and Whale and Dolphin Conservation, confused global visitors still economically contribute to whaling.

Global whales in a global system – don’t forget, they actually move!

Concerning the global political economy, the advantageous location of hotspots helps local societies capture mobile global capital allowing for livelihoods and growth. Worryingly, the general perception that whale watching is completely safe is a myth. Considerations must be given to pollution from transporting people to whales, and also, human pressure exerted on whales.

Visual consumption of cetaceans (Neo and Ngiam, 2014) brings increased pressure to global ecosystems that whales navigate in. Increased flights, tours and waste from higher volume of tourists contribute to larger carbon footprints. Despite Iceland’s ability to run on 100% renewable energy, it does not offset the carbon generated from cetacean tourism elsewhere. This shifts pollution from local hotspots to other global environs. Consequently, whale watching companies and tourists touting it as “green” and “educational” fails to acknowledge potential damage inflicted to the global system whales inhabit.

Whales do not exist exclusively in situ. Being highly mobile, they traverse vast volumetric spaces, interacting with other marine organisms and hotspots all year-round. This exposes them to constant human activity infiltrating their ecosystems.

Image 3: Biological and psychological changes in whale behaviour observed at whale watching hotspots (Adapted from Parsons, 2012).

Above, Parsons (2012) describe the ways whale behaviours change from whale watching, and as Neo and Ngiam (2014) argue, this alters the nature of cetaceans, causing deviations from their supposed natural state. When humanity modifies the very “nature” (for lack of better word) of what they strive to keep pristine, is it still nature?

Conclusion

To sum up, whale watching as a global tourism industry is, perhaps, a slightly more sustainable way of appreciating cetaceans. However, its effect in manipulating social behaviour of whales and ocean ecology raise serious questions. Is whale watching any different from whaling? We are altering whales to fit our needs and expectations. These actions driven by capitalistic goals will serve to harm generations of cetaceans in the long run. 

[561 words]

References

Actman, J. (2016). Icelanders Don’t Like Whale Meat—So Why the Hunts?. [online] News.nationalgeographic.com. Available at: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/160127-Iceland-commercial-whaling-minke-fin-whales/ [Accessed 26 Sep. 2016].

Elding.is. (2016). Whale Watching tour operator in Reykjavik Iceland. [online] Available at: http://elding.is/ [Accessed 29 Sep. 2016].

Gray Line Iceland. (2016) Gray Line Iceland - Award winning and best selling tours. [online] Available at: http://grayline.is/ [Accessed 29 Sep. 2016].

Iceland Review. (2015). Whale Watching Tourists Observe Whalers at Work. [online] Available at: http://icelandreview.com/news/2015/08/24/whale-watching-tourists-observe-whalers-work%20?language=en [Accessed 27 Sep. 2016].

Neo, H. and Ngiam, J.Z. (2014). Contesting captive cetaceans: (il)legal spaces and the nature of dolphins in urban Singapore. Social & Cultural Geography, 15(3), pp.235-254.

Parsons, E. (2012). The Negative Impacts of Whale Watching. Journal of Marine Biology, 2012, pp.1-9.

Emotions

When mentioning whales, what comes to mind? Big graceful creatures, majestic and peaceful... cute even. That’s what urbanites – in their high rise skyscrapers disconnected from the oceanic world – would think of. If I were to pose the same question to an aboriginal, will I get the same response? The likely answer is no. In a global setting dominated by different cultures and ways of living, emotions and perceptions are shaped by our local (global?) environments and knowledge.

Culture sits in places – different places, different knowledge, emotions, morals and political view.

Cultures are rooted to places and this shapes the emotions individuals have of the environment (Escobar, 2001). Within urban conurbations, “the social construction of and the plurality of knowledge” (Blaikie, 1995: 204) controlled by experts in various industries aim to spread a homogenized civilized view on cetaceans for instance. Through those means, experts are able to “[persuade] others through appeals to reason, science and… coercion” (1995: 204). The interconnectivity of urban worlds brings the average human closer to cetaceans via internet videos and also, appeals by eco-groups like Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace – enabling them to mobilize even bigger “armies” as seen in the clip below.

The strong fetishizing of cetaceans in urban society is a probable explanation for the intense love and emotions among urbanites. The socially constructed “urban” idea of cetaceans in popular media like Bailey the beluga in Finding Dory, International Whale Day, seen below, paints the ideal normative image of how and what cetaceans should be. This concretizes urban notions of cetaceans – creatures that can feel, sing and function just like humans.

Image 1: An article headline from The Independent.

Image 2: Snippets from a blogpost, Wild about Whales, detailing why people love whales.

Image 3: An article on the International Fund for Animal Welfare page detailing International Whale Day.

Image 4: Bailey the Beluga, a smiling whale designed to appeal to people from all ages.

Ergo, we project images of ourselves onto cetaceans, accepting them for their cultural and social behaviours. Thus, our desire to protect whales globally stem from our belief that we are doing our part for the global environment and assisting in the conservation of whales. I feel that cetaceans serve as tools that urbanites use to feel better about ourselves.

Valuing cetaceans – to whom are they more meaningful to? Us or them?

Conversely, for those who rely on whales for survival, cetaceans carry a different utilitarian and intrinsic value. For the Inuit, cetaceans and other wildlife are respected and viewed as essential to their material and spiritual livelihoods, treating them as equals. This nullify the human-nature divide. Materially, whales provide food and construction materials while spiritually, it represents their fulfilment to Sedna in the cycles of life[1] (Harrop, 2011).

Following globalization, emotionally-charged urbanites occasionally clash with the Inuit world. Their calls for modern living fails to recognize the deep cultural, and partially ecological, values in Inuit traditional ways.

Greenpeace, at the forefront of Arctic ecological defence, have taken varying stances towards Aboriginal (Inuit) subsistence hunting. Concerning whales, they (together with the global public) have gone from condemning the Inuit back in the 70s – resulting in severe consequences on the Inuit – to congratulating them on a successful hunt in 2014. Such contradicting acts as an eco-group puts their value of cetaceans in question. 

By commoditising cetaceans and trading back Inuit “hunting rights” in return for partnership against Arctic oil drilling, this highlights the insignificant value cetaceans carry. Rather, Greenpeace capitalises on the emotions of the masses and utilises cetaceans to further their political and environmental aims (as seen in the earlier video).

Conclusion

In sum, cetaceans are prized resources among different cultures with diverse values and meanings attached to them. Largely, emotions shaped by our individual environments and constructed knowledges dictate our actions and reactions to cetaceans, causing clashes in the name of ecology. Despite having the best interest at heart, measures taken by global masses to protect the cetaceans have unintended social ramifications to indigenous parties.

[550 words]

References

Blaikie, P. (1995) “Changing Environments or Changing Views? A Political Ecology for Developing Countries”, Geography, 80(3): 203-214.

Escobar, A. (2001). Culture sits in places: reflections on globalism and subaltern strategies of localization. Political Geography, 20(2), pp.139-174.

Harrop, S. (2011). Impressions: Whales and Human Relationships in Myth, Tradition and Law. In: P. Brakes and M. Simmonds, ed., Whales and Dolphins: Cognition, Culture, Conservation and Human Perceptions, 1st ed. London: Earthscan, pp.9-22.

IFAW - International Fund for Animal Welfare. (2002). On National Whale Day, why do you love whales?. [online] Available at: http://www.ifaw.org/australia/news/national-whale-day-why-do-you-love-whales [Accessed 28 Aug. 2016].

The Independent. (2006). Whales in love: Like humans, their brains are wired for romance. [online] Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/whales-in-love-like-humans-their-brains-are-wired-for-romance-427863.html [Accessed 28 Aug. 2016].

Wildaboutwhales.com.au. (2013). Wild About Whales | Why People Love Whales | Wild About Whales | NSW National Parks. [online] Available at: http://www.wildaboutwhales.com.au/blog/why-people-love-whales [Accessed 28 Aug. 2016].

---

[1] The tale of Sedna, the Inuit Goddess of the sea and marine mammals portrays how Sedna’s father sacrificed his daughter in an attempt to appease the spirits. The tale describes the hardship and sacrifices required to survive in a harsh polar landscape. Hence, by hunting whales, the Inuit are consuming the spirit of Sedna which then permeates their souls. In return, their eventual deaths resemble their sacrifice to the world, just like the cetaceans they hunt.