1.1. ISSUES IN ANIMAL TREATMENT
Next
Previous
Home
1.1.1. Animal Welfare Allegations
It is necessary, however, to contextualise
such discussion by first summarising the more immediate and practical debate
over notions of cruelty and maltreatment of circus animals. The animal
welfare lobby contends that because circuses in Australia travel for the
majority of the year (generally 45-50 weeks), the logistics of transportation
mean that animals spend much of their time shackled, in beast wagons or
cages that restrict the animals� natural behavioral patterns. For example,
the education kit on circus animals from Animal Liberation Victoria states:
| "Elephants are routinely chained by the front feet, which can lead to excessive foot problems and in extreme cases, the chain becoming embedded in the elephant�s foot. In captivity, foot care can become a problem if elephants cannot wander over a large enough area.� |
As well as specific physiological disorders
associated with confinement and transportation, there are general concerns
over the quality of diet for exotic animals:
| �There is grave concerns (sic) that in a struggling circus the quality of food given to its animals is inevitably poor because of prohibitive cost and availability, particularly in country areas.� (Animal Liberation Education Kit) |
There is also concern for the psychological
well being of captive animals. Animal welfare organisations claim the monotonous
and restricted environment of circus animals can lead to stereotyped behaviour,
such as pacing and head swaying, indicating psychological trauma. For some
animals the circus environment causes specific stress. For example, brown
bears are denied their natural period of hibernation (Animal Liberation
Education Kit). There is speculation that the training of animals necessarily
involves cruelty. Pyers (Lines 74-78) says:
| �All animals fear fire so to me if you were to tie it to a lion, to a ring, to a burning ring, it means that the fear of jumping through is greater than the fear of the fire itself. So it must be ... says something about its training.� |
In the past it has been difficult to prove claims of cruelty in training due to defensiveness amongst traditional circuses towards inspection by animal welfare organisations, and a degree of professional caution in publicising training techniques. There has also been growing public and political concern over the international trade in endangered species. Australia became signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, Wild Fauna and Flora in 1973. Since then, legislation and regulation at both state and federal level have made importation of certain species virtually impossible. As a result, it seems inevitable that certain exotic animal acts are destined to disappear from circus in Australia, as animals die or become too old to continue performing.
1.1.2. Traditional Circus Response
Traditional circuses defend themselves against
the claim that circuses are inherently cruel. Many cite an independent
report prepared for the RSPCA in Britain by Dr Marie Kiley-Worthington.
Kiley-Worthington found that circuses do not by their nature cause suffering
and distress in circus animals; the welfare of animals in circuses as judged
by physical and psychological criteria is not as a rule inferior to other
animal husbandry systems; there is no evidence of distress or trauma from
transportation; that animals were adequately fed, and generally had good
veterinary supervision; there was no evidence of cruelty, or prolonged
pain or suffering during the training of any of the animals; and, that
certain housing conditions severely restricted the animals� behavioural
patterns. Such practices are unnecessary and should and can be eliminated
(summarised from First National Circus Summit Report:1990:77). No such
research has been conducted in Australia, and so animal husbandry standards
in circuses in Australia may or may not match those in Britain. Animal
Liberation has documented about twenty-five years of incidents involving
circus animals, some of which have involved the death or injury of both
animals and humans. This does raise specific concerns over the state of
the industry in this country. The Circus Federation of Australia is attempting
to address this with the development over the last five years of an industry
code of ethics, modeled on a similar code in Britain developed as a result
of the Kiley-Worthington report. Australian circuses have already introduced
some of the measures recommended by Kiley-Worthington. For example, it
was observed that Ash ton�s Circus has introduced an electric fenced area
for elephants where they have more space and can engage in healthier social
behaviour, free from tethering. The code of ethics is currently in second
draft and has been presented to relevant state government departments.
All state governments are developing standards governing the exhibition
of circus animals, in consultation with the Circus Federation.
Traditional circuses defend their right to
use performing animals by claiming they are simply responding to audience
demand. All research participants from traditional circus cited audience
demand as a major reason for retaining animal acts, with Anton Gasser (Lines
17-19) from Silver�s Circus claiming he would face bankruptcy without animal
acts. Jane Mullet, former Circus Oz performer and head trainer with The
Flying Fruit Fly Circus, spent some time working with Edgley�s Great Moscow
Circus:
| �They claim that ... animal acts are always the most popular, and certainly while I was on the circus, when you would be going through the show and you would be watching the audience there would be the odd flash camera going off but when the bears came on it would be practically blinding.� (Mullet: Lines 73-78) |
Observation of four circuses with animals would certainly confirm the popularity with audiences of such acts.
Traditional circuses differentiate themselves
from the presentation of exotic animals by zoos and the print and electronic
media, claiming that the close contact that they offer audiences (before,
after and during performance) gives them a unique
educational role:
| �I think that the closer people can see animals, and to make it interesting again, the more respect they have got for animals, the more caring they are going to be.� (Lorraine Grant: Lines 167-170) |
Media representation of animals in the wild,
in the form of documentaries and photographic essays in magazines, is claimed
to be more appropriate educational tools by animal welfare groups. This
is because animals are seen in their natural environment exhibiting their
natural behaviour. Circuses, on the other hand, claim that the direct contact
available at circus makes them educationally superior to media representation.
At the First National Circus Summit in 1990, Barry Nixon claimed that the
animal act is �green entertainment�:
| �The successful wildlife campaigns like Operation Tiger, Save the Whales and now Elephant Friends have all had their task made easier because these animals are familiar to the public.�(Summit Report:1990:76) |
Lorraine Grant (Lines 170-174) uses the following
analogy:
| �You know yourself if you see an accident or read of an accident, oh poor devil, oh poor so-and-so, but if its someone you know, someone you have met, it is a deeper feeling for it, and it is the same for animals in circus.� |
It is possible to relate to circus animals on this level because they are handled by humans from a young age. Zoo animals have comparatively little human contact. As such, Gary Grant (Lines 74-76) considers circus animals far more approachable. He (Lines 61-68) recounts a story of introducing a blind girl to a camel allowing her to feel the animal and discern its shape. Olsen (Lines 53-54), whose experience lies in non-animal circus in Britain, makes the observation that many rural audiences have no access to a zoo, with circuses providing the only contact with exotic species.
1.2. NON-TRADITIONAL CIRCUS
AND ANIMALS
Next
Previous
Home
Groups such as Animal Liberation call on
circuses that use animals to be boycotted in favour of circuses without
animals. Because of this, together with media coverage that finds the topicality
of these issues a useful way to understand circus without animals, it is
easy to assume that such circuses are completely opposed to performing
animals. This has never been the case. Examples of these ideas being promoted
in the media can be found as early as 1978, when Circus Oz was just a few
months old. An article from The Age (February 11, 1 978) is headed �With
Circus Oz, Who Needs Wild Animals?�. In the story that follows only two
paragraphs towards the end of the story are devoted to the issue of performing
animals, one of which reads:
| �So far Oz has no animal acts, though Tim [Coldwell] confesses to being �very partial to elephants�. But though they look grandly to a future with equestrian acts, and maybe a performing dog or two, Oz doesn�t anticipate an influx of lions and tigers.� |
It is also noteworthy that Circus Oz has used animals in the past (including a dog and a live chicken) albeit rarely (Broadway: Lines 26-30). It is ironic that Animal Liberation should promote Circus Oz, when they protested against the French circus, Archaos, when they toured Australia in 1990 with a live chicken act.
1.2.1. Ambivalence Towards Animal Acts
It is rather a case of ambivalence towards
animal acts than a complete opposition among such circuses. Animal training
has never been a part of the circus culture initiated by Circus Oz. There
are a number of reasons for this. The circuses that do not use animals
grew out of a theatrical tradition with social and political agendas that
were drawn to the use of popular physical forms. Soapbox Circus performed
its acrobatic style of physical theatre in factories, parks and demonstrations
in 1976 and 1977 (see Chapter 4). As a forerunner to Circus Oz, it influenced
the development of a culture of acrobatic performance that characterises
much of the contemporary circus now being practiced. As a result, the animal
act never had specific relevance in the development of this culture. Laurie
(Lines 82-89) says of the early Circus Oz:
| �We never had a base in the way that traditional circus people had a base, or a place in the country, even traveling around, we never had the resources that would have enabled us to look after animals, especially big animals. To buy them, to look after them. We didn�t have the skills to train them. It was never a possibility, so it was never an issue. It became an issue when Animal Liberation became very vocal.� |
It is this concentration on physical performance,
together with a lack of expertise in animal training that characterises
many of the attitudes that prevail in contemporary circus. Many participants
consider animal acts boring, and contextualise such statements by commenting
or inferring that acrobatic acts are more interesting and relevant to them
as audience at traditional circus performances. Yates (Lines 1 4-1 8) says:
| �Animal acts bore me, basically. In Australian traditional circus, most of the show is animal acts now. There�s not actually any physical acts, just animals and clowns, and that bores me to tears.� |
This is a view shared by Oates (Lines 44-48)
from Rock�n�Roll Circus:
| �The thing I find with the animal act is I find the acts quite dull. I�m never really amazed by the acts. I mean it is the initial thing of: wow, it�s so big, it�s there, but I mean I just find what they do with them quite boring compared to other circus acts.� |
Both Yates and Oates represent a second or
third generation of non-animal circus performers. There is generally more
tolerance, even express fascination with animal acts amongst the first
generation of Circus Oz performers who participated in this research. In
response to a question about her feelings towards performing animals, Laurie
(line 4) replies, �I�ve been thinking about getting a pig.� Coldwell (Line
3) says, �I like it. Sometimes.� Mullet (Lines: 4-51) has no objection
to animal acts provided the animals are humanely treated and goes on to
discuss the Kiley-Worthington Report at length.
1.2.2. Animal Acts and Audience
Some of the participants also question the
relevance to their audiences of animal acts. Coldwell (Lines 3-4) considers
that animal acts are disappearing from circus because animals are removed
from people�s lives. Broadway tends to be in agreement with this view.
She (Lines 92-99) says:
| �I think, in traditional circus the relationship between people and animals is one of the mainstays of meaning of the show. I think that what was perhaps more important... in the way, for example that stock cars and motorbike acts at fairgrounds are now really popular because people get to see specialists doing extraordinary things with the ordinary objects that they deal within their everyday life.� |
The question over audience relevance seems to be at odds with the claims made by traditional circuses that they retain animal acts due to overwhelming audience demand. This points to the difference in audiences for different types of circus in Australia. Most traditional circuses tour country and outer suburban areas, and are in fact unable to tour inner urban areas due to local council regulation. In 1990, a survey of Victorian councils found that 50% of councils in the Greater Melbourne Area (GMA), which tended to be within half an hour�s drive of the city centre, ban visits by circuses with animals. This is compared to 20% of country councils that ban such circuses. Of the 22 GMA councils that have such bans, 55% cite land use regulations, followed by 40% who cite animal rights as the reason for denial. All of the five regional councils cite land use as the reason for denial (Melbourne Western Region Arts Committee Survey reproduced in The First National Circus Summit Report: 1990:103-110).
Such policies define the type of circus to which residents in any particular region may have access. Also, assuming that elected councils do to some - extent reflect the beliefs of their constituency, public tastes in regard to circuses are regionally defined. It is therefore more accurate to differentiate circus traditions demographically, rather than in terms of animal use. As such, there are two broad groupings of circus in Australia: the outer urban/rural circuses, and inner urban circuses. There are, of course, exceptions to this. Circus Oz and Rock�n�RoIl Circus have toured regionally, although this has been infrequent. In addition, Circus Oz may be considered an international touring company, as the company spends much of its time out of the country. The Flying Fruit Fly Circus, whilst it is ostensibly a regional circus, owes its character to the forms of circus that are generally considered here to be those of inner urban circus. Its popularity in regions along the Murray River is due to considerable local pride, after the company gained national and international recognition during the 1980s.
1.2.3. Animals in Non-traditional Circus
The fact that animal acts have traditionally
been �one of the mainstays of meaning� (Broadway: Line 94) of circus perhaps
explains the continuing fascination with the relationship between humans
and animals in contemporary circus. Broadway (Lines 35-37) certainly leaves
the way open for Circus Oz to possibly include domestic animals in performance
in the future. Rock�n�Roll Circus (Brown: Lines 1 5-1 6) is also noncommittal
towards the use of domestic animals in its policy on the subject and leaves
open the possibility of their inclusion in future shows.
1.3. FEAR AND DOMINATION
OF THE �WILD�
Next
Previous
Home
There is an argument that falls between the
debates over whether animals should be banned outright from, or retained
by circus. The argument for domestic animals sidesteps many of the compelling
arguments relating to the treatment and quality of life of circus animals,
as well as arguments referring to the capture of animals in the wild. There
is a subtle difference between �domestic� versus �exotic� and �domesticated�
versus �wild�. The former is comparatively unambiguous, and a mute point
considering Australia�s quarantine and wildlife legislation, as well as
its international convention obligations.
1.3.1. Animals and the Circus Community
The latter is far more fascinating because,
not only does it relate to the debate as outlined, it also touches on the
foundations of not only the meaning contained in animal acts, but of circus
as a whole. Ashton�s Circus makes no distinction between their animals
being domesticated or wild:
| �We don�t think there is any difference because they�re our domestic animals.� (Lorraine Grant: Line 105-106) |
This is important, because one of the objections
raised by the animal welfare lobby is that animal acts are humiliating
in the way that animals are presented: �dressed up or displayed as if they
were stupid or handicapped human beings� (KileyWorthington: 1990:215).
They also object to such images as the whip-cracking trainer dominating
the big cats who, by their nature and attendant mythology, represent ferocity
and independence (incidentally, the whip is almost always for show, and
is not used
to train or control the animals (Bergin:1989:65).
Traditional circuses cannot comprehend such objections.
Performance and illusion are central to the family life of traveling circus people and animals. As with actors and other performers, the individual is to some extent obscured by character. Therefore it seems quite natural that circus animals appear in the ring other than themselves, either by doing tricks, or being dressed up. Human performers in circus are also expected to do this. This has led to those outside circus culture to equate the coding of performance with the actual condition of circus animals.
1.3.2. Anthropomorphism
This is to some extent an understandable
error. Circuses exploit their mystery to enhance the illusion of performance.
The anthropomorphic role of the circus animal has ancient origins dating
back at least to Circus Maximus (Bouissac:1985:12), where elephants and
were trained to appear to be doing human actions such as playing with a
ball, dancing and sitting down to dinner. The animal act plays out a mediation
between human and animal, and as such is not intended to �humiliate� the
animal, but theatricalise the bonding that ideally takes place between
trainer and animal.
1.3.3. The Fear and Domination Show
Such anthropomorphism is part of the mythology
of circus. It is one of the many elements of the grotesque in circus. So
when performing animals are branded �freaks of nature� (BeIli: Line 39-40)
this is absolutely true. Condemnation of this may represent a fear of the
grotesque, rather than a rational criticism of the use of performing animals.
Indeed, fear is an ever-present theme in circus. As such, the exotic animal
act is well placed to play out the audiences� fear of the �wild�. Such
fear was probably more immediate in colonial Australia, when settlers from
Britain were confronted with a harsh, alien landscape. It is also true
that remote communities today have a more immediate understanding of the
harshness of their environment. Perhaps this also contributes to the continuing
popularity of the traveling menagerie in rural Australia. Such fear is
played out in the animal act.
Many of the participants refer to the theme of domination in the �wild� animal act, and as discussed earlier, the animal welfare lobby often mistakes the played domination (the whip) as actual domination. Interestingly, nearly all participants used the term �wild� to refer only to the big cats (lions, tigers, tigons, panthers, etc). Elephants were described by Lorraine Grant (Line 113-114) as �the workhorse of South East Asia�, and were considered by all but one participant (who was corrected by her college) as domesticated. This supports a distinction between �wild� versus �domesticated� and �exotic� versus �domestic�. The big cats, by their nature, appear disinterested and their predatory nature and obvious physical power causes instinctive fear in humans. It seems that the only way a human could step into the cage with such animals was if s/he had complete dominance. The trainer and animal, who play out the theme of dominance over fear, probably spend a great deal of time in each other's company (in ideal circumstances).
1.3.4. The Relevance of the �Wild� to Urban
Audiences
The theme of such acts, however, is being
replaced with one about dominance over the natural environment, rather
than over fear, as the shrinking �wild� is something that no longer need
be feared, especially from the perspective of urban existence. It is therefore
understandable that many participants call the relevance and ethical responsibility
of such acts into question:
�all the wild beast stuff belongs to a kind
of culture where there is inherently a fear of wild animals. That, on one
level, is an expression of dominance over the animal world� (Coldwell:
Lines 30-33). Many of the participants objected to animal acts, referring
to a foundation of animal liberation that rejects the notion of species
hierarchy. Broadway (Lines 47-50) says:
| �The subtext of all animal acts is the pyramidal notion of the world: man at the top, dumb beasts at the bottom and God somewhere above that. That�s a map of the world that I don�t actually subscribe to.� |
Coldwell (Lines 35-40) believes that the meaning
of the animal act has changed over time:
| �humans now really do completely dominate the animal world. Where there isn�t any figure of wild animals, then it�s quite a different thing. The culture means quite a different thing from when wild animals were the mythical beasts that were something to be afraid of.� |
This is why many of those in contemporary circus find exotic animal acts irrelevant, especially when performing to inner urban audiences.
1.3.5. The Domesticated Animal Act
It also explains why many of the participants
who expressed concern over the use of exotic animals are more comfortable
with the use of domesticated animals. Circus Oz has used domesticated animals,
as mentioned before, and Rock�n�Roll Circus has, at this stage, no policy
commitment on their use. This is because domestic animals such as dogs
do still have a place in urban life, with audiences still likely to relate
to such animals in performance. Many pet owners also engage in anthropomorphosis
with their animals, as Lorraine Grant (Lines 149-1 54) observes:
| �if you are going to belittle circuses for putting ... say for putting clothes on animals you got to belittle the people who have cats and dogs and dress them up. And you are going to belittle the newspapers who show a football photo every year of a bulldog with a beret on of a team.� |
It is perhaps an inevitable part of human
communication and contact with animals that such anthropomorphosis takes
place. The themes of domination present in the big cat acts are not as
pronounced in acts with domesticated animals:
| �Festival Circus in Western Australia used dogs and horses. It�s very hard to object because they have even designed some of the acts where the dogs have ended up looking smarter than the humans. So it�s not like watching some puppet jump through a hoop. It�s quite interesting, but amusing. They use the characters of the animals to build up the act.� (Olsen: Lines 25-31) |
1.4. CONCLUSION
Next
Previous
Home
Such attitudes point the way to the possibility
of animal acts that promote respect towards other species, playing out
the drama where the human does not necessarily preside over a hierarchy
of species. It is true that animal welfare organisations are justified
in their concerns over the treatment of circus animals in specific circumstances.
There does not, however, appear to be grounds for the total abolition of
animal from circus. Many of the concerns raised should be alleviated if
proposed legislation can be enforced and if the circus industry can adhere
to its own ethical guidelines. It seems that the fate of exotic animal
acts will be decided by growing public concern over the preservation of
natural habitats, and . eventually disappear due to import restrictions.
Within contemporary circus, however, there is no overwhelming ethical objection
to the use of performing animals amongst participants in this research.
Whilst it is true that those from circuses without animals more often raise
ethical concerns, the distinctions from the traditional position are far
less clear than the media and animal welfare organisations promote. Respondents
from newer circus traditions displayed a great deal of fascination with
the animal act. They raised concerns over the themes of domination expressed
in the traditional animal act. This palpable change in attitude reflects
a generational change in the apprehension of the natural world. No longer
is it seen as something to be feared; rather, it is something to be understood
and communicated with. Ironically, it is the traditional traveling menagerie,
under so much attack for it treatment and presentation of animals, which
-are one of the last depositories of knowledge concerning communication
with so many species. This knowledge is not scientific in its approach:
it is performative. As one of the grand themes of circus, the relationship
between human and animal is still important in contemporary circus, even
where there is no longer any knowledge of animal training. The �wild�,
however, is no longer the vastness of the New World waiting to be conquered
and colonised. Rather, it is pockets of a world that is long gone. If these
pockets are to be preserved, the future drama of human and animal will
have to be one of understanding and care, rather than fear and domination.