The Ethics of Naming Wild Animals
Here is a summary explaining how the arguments against naming wild animals were identified from the 5 source articles listed below, broken down and explained, and then refuted with counterarguments.
Summary of Articles Investigated:
To name or not to name, that is the question — Lion Landscapes
https://www.lionlandscapes.org/post/to-name-or-not-to-name-that-is-the-question
The Lion Landscapes article discusses the pros and cons of naming wild animals based on the authors’ experiences, arguing names can help conservation but caution is needed.
Naming One That’s Wild: A Conservation Aid? — Natural Habitat Adventures
https://www.nathab.com/blog/naming-one-thats-wild-a-conservation-aid/
The Natural Habitat Adventures article suggests naming wild animals makes their stories more memorable and impactful for raising conservation awareness.
Anthropomorphic Strategies Promote Wildlife Conservation — National Institutes of Health
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8037496/
The National Institutes of Health article provides the example of Knut the polar bear to illustrate naming’s potential for commercialisation and abnormal lives.
Should individual animals be given names in wildlife … — John Wiley
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.10503
The Wiley article reviews literature on naming individual wild animals and surfaces arguments about anthropomorphism, charismatic species focus, and emotional attachments.
Consequences of Naming Non-Human Animals — PMC — National Institutes of Health
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4552209/
The PMC article analyses naming philosophically, finding issues like anthropocentrism, eurocentrism, generic naming problems, and power relations.
Identification and Explanation of Arguments:
Drawing from these source articles, seven key arguments against naming wild animals were identified and categorised.
Arguments identified:
- Anthropomorphism and Misunderstanding
- Focus on Charismatic Species
- Emotional Attachment and Distorted Perceptions
- Power Relations and Control
- Anthropocentrism and Eurocentrism
- Generic Naming and Categorisation
- Commercialisation and Abnormal Life
Counter Arguments Provided:
To balance each identified argument against naming, counter arguments were presented to highlight potential rebuttals or alternative viewpoints. Examples include balancing anthropomorphism’s risks and benefits, charismatic species’ role in engagement, emotional connections fostering conservation support, and intent influencing the act of naming.
In summary, the source articles provided the basis for synthesising arguments, the arguments were explicitly explained for each concern raised, and counter arguments aimed to add nuance to the discussion. This format aimed to fairly represent critiques and responses around the complex issue of naming wild animals.
The practice of naming wild animals is controversial, with arguments on both sides of the debate. This paper will summarise the key arguments made against naming wild animals and provide counter arguments for each point.
The arguments against naming wild animals were synthesised from these articles in the following ways:
Argument 1 (Anthropomorphism and Misunderstanding) comes primarily from the Lion Landscapes and Wiley articles, which discuss the risks of anthropomorphism leading to misunderstandings about animals.
Argument 2 (Focus on Charismatic Species) is drawn from the Wiley article, which argues naming often focuses on charismatic species.
Argument 3 (Emotional Attachment and Distorted Perceptions) comes from the Natural Habitat Adventures and Wiley articles discussing how naming creates emotional attachments that may distort perceptions.
Argument 4 (Power Relations and Control) is synthesised from the National Institutes of Health and PMC articles, which analyse naming as an act of power and control.
Argument 5 (Anthropocentrism and Eurocentrism) comes from the PMC article discussing anthropocentric and Eurocentric biases in naming.
Argument 6 (Generic Naming and Categorisation) is built from the PMC article’s analysis of problems with generic naming.
Argument 7 (Commercialisation and Abnormal Life) comes from the example of Knut the polar bear discussed in the National Institutes of Health article.
In summary, each argument was derived by identifying a consistent concern or critique about naming wild animals expressed in one or more of the source articles provided. The counterarguments aimed to provide balance by presenting potential rebuttals to each concern.
Argument 1: Anthropomorphism and Misunderstanding
A common argument made against naming wild animals is that it can lead to anthropomorphism, attributing human traits and characteristics to non-human animals. This may result in misunderstandings about the true nature and needs of the animals, potentially leading to inappropriate conservation strategies. There is also concern that an overemphasis on individual named animals may take focus away from broader conservation goals.
Counterargument: While anthropomorphism is a valid concern, emotions like fear, joy and sadness are not exclusively human traits. Recognising shared emotions in animals can enhance understanding and foster empathy towards them, which can benefit conservation. Naming individual animals can raise awareness and generate support for broader conservation efforts, with these “ambassador” animals benefiting entire species and ecosystems. While caution about anthropomorphism is warranted, its potential benefits should also be recognised.
Argument 2: Focus on Charismatic Species
It is argued that naming often occurs for charismatic “poster” species like large mammals, leading to disproportionate focus and resources compared to less charismatic species equally needing conservation.
Counterargument: While charismatic species attract attention, conservation resource allocation depends on many factors, not just charisma. For example: IUCN guidelines ensure systematic, scientific approaches to species conservation planning and most conservation projects follow these or similar guidelines. Charismatic species can serve as flagship species, with ecosystem protections benefiting many species. Public engagement via charismatic species can educate about wider issues. While balancing is needed, charismatic species can positively contribute to overall conservation.
Argument 3: Emotional Attachment and Distorted Perceptions
Naming may create strong emotional attachments to individual animals, potentially distorting public perceptions about wildlife and leading to unrealistic protection demands conflicting with broader goals.
Counterargument: Emotional connection can positively harness support for conservation. Attachment to bear399 and bear863, in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, has increased public interest, funding, policy support, and volunteer participation in conservation. Relating to individual animals fosters understanding and shifts attitudes to support wildlife and coexistence. While some demands may be unrealistic, most public concern does not conflict with conservation aims. Emotional attachment often brings issues to the forefront. Underestimating public comprehension of broader goals is problematic. Overall, an emotional connection helps conservation.
Argument 4: Power Relations and Control
Naming represents power and control, reflecting the namer’s worldview rather than the named animal’s. This can influence how the animal is perceived, forming future representations.
Counterargument: Naming can also indicate respect and connection. It acknowledges an animal’s individuality and existence, fostering empathy and understanding. The intention behind naming varies; it is not inherently dominance. For animals like companion and zoo animals, naming indicates care and closeness. The perception of naming as dominance is one viewpoint; naming can also foster respect and protection.
Argument 5: Anthropocentrism and Eurocentrism
Critics point to anthropocentric and Eurocentric biases in naming practices, a form of cultural imperialism over native cultures in colonial/postcolonial societies.
Counterargument: Biased naming practices reflect context, not an inherent flaw. Responsible naming respects local cultures and biodiversity. For example, in South Africa’s Sabi Sands Nature Reserve, guides who first see an animal name it in the local Xitsonga language, describing a characteristic of that individual, fostering community ownership and context. Naming can be conducted sensitively, not imposingly.
Argument 6: Generic Naming and Categorisation
It is argued that generic naming/categorisation disregards individuality and leads to unequal power relations and treatment based on assigned categories.
Counterargument: Generic naming contributes to perceiving animals as interchangeable objects rather than individuals. But individual naming promotes empathy and respect for each animal’s identity. Generic naming reinforces inequality; individual naming can counteract this.
Argument 7: Commercialisation and Abnormal Life
Concerns are raised that naming leads to commercialisation and abnormal lives for named animals. For instance, captive polar bear Knut’s fame impacted him negatively.
Counterargument: There are few examples of named wild animals living abnormal lives. Knut was a captive zoo animal; his life would have been abnormal regardless of his name. Naming impacts are primarily a concern for captive or domesticated animals, not those in the wild.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there are valid arguments against naming wild animals, but also strong counterarguments in its favour. With careful practices, naming’s benefits of fostering understanding, empathy and conservation support can outweigh concerns about anthropomorphism, charismatic species bias and emotional attachment. Overall, naming’s effects are complex but can positively contribute to conservation attitudes when conducted thoughtfully. A balanced viewpoint accounting for arguments on both sides of this issue is warranted.
