“Climate change, habitat loss, poaching these are the important issues, so why do you choose to focus on these small-scale ethical breaches and turn on fellow photographers? Cant’ you see the good they’re doing? Do you want to be responsible for damaging their reputation, and consequently the conservation cause? Did you have to be so public, so aggressive, so vociferous in your accusations? What have you done in comparison?”
These are some of the arguments which have come up in response to one of my recent postings with respect to abuses which I observed by tour leaders at Tropical Herping during one of their tours at Sani lodge. Now, it’s important to answer these questions, or at least address the sentiment behind them, because photography is an image-based industry. So what happens when consumer and viewer confidence in those images is eroded? This is to my mind a foundational problem which can undermine the legitimacy of all wildlife photographers, and the causes into which they have become assimilated. Belittling or avoiding the problem is a sure way to continue along an ultimately self-destructive path.
The line of adversarial questioning I led with, cycles through a series of argumentative techniques which do nothing to address the original questions and concerns raised, and seem to either justify or downplay the abuse, in exchange for emotional points scored, and a kind of consequentialism (the moral basis for right and wrong is based solely on the ultimate outcome, rather than one’s actual conduct ie. the ends justify the means). This isn’t to say that they aren’t valid questions, but they fall outside the realm of the discourse on abuse. Most of these arguments are common forms of argumentative denial, or avoidance, and have even been given their proper expressions within the field of dialectics (the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions). A great illustration of argumentative merit, is exemplified by Paul Graham’s ‘hierarchy of disagreement’*.
Even at the upper levels of discourse, exemplified by refutation and counterargument, there are still opposing arguments which don’t address the central tenet or thesis of the author, but appear to shore up the credibility of the opponent by offering the guise of a reasoned response. These wayward opposing arguments aren’t always intentional, as an opponent to the argument may have missed the point being made, or else might not have a problem with the central point, but rather supporting or peripheral points. Several of these arguments are common enough that they have their own, rather evocative names:
The Strawman argument – Refuting an argument other than the one which was originally presented as a substitute for dealing with the original argument. The greater the semblance of the two arguments, the higher the likelihood of convincing one’s audience.
Red herring argument – A diversionary argument constructed in order to divert attention away from the original argument.
While on the surface these arguments might appear to have some validity, when de-constructed, one can begin to see the cracks or logical fallacies. Eg. A lawyer argues in a courtroom, “Yes your honour, my client may have robbed a convenience store, but he did so in order to feed the hungry”. In both cases, there’s an attempt at legitimization of wrongs through a self-ascribed nobility of purpose, despite the fact that the means for achieving the result is in contravention to either the law or ethical norms. Moreover, the wrongful action creates a domino effect of potential damaging outcomes, all of which the thief of the example, would ultimately be responsible for (What if the cashier had a gun and defended the store? What if a bystander had a concealed weapon? Any consequence has the client as its root). Applied to wildlife photography, small-scale abuses can 1) Create and/or perpetuate a culture or normalization of abuse 2) Erode one’s own respect for wildlife, and those of impressionable witnesses (especially where one’s position of status, academic or otherwise, confers a degree of authority) 3) Over time, small abuses can increase in frequency and degree of severity ie. desensitization 4) It can encourage others who do not have the same context, understanding or training to engage in similar behaviours with potentially even greater consequences 5) Create an atmosphere of distrust between the viewer and the photographer. This extends not only to the abuser’s own base of followers, but as a kind of general disenfranchisement towards everyone in the industry, thereby affecting one’s fellow photographers, and destabilizing the industry as a whole. 6) Complicity through silence, inaction, and avoidance degrades the moral fabric of institutions, and those who are stewards and ambassadors for wildlife. People whose very function is the protection of those animals, are forced to live with guilt (regardless of the size and scale of the abuse) for being put into a situation of sinful omission to the public, by the abusers (an excellent NYtimes article on the complexities of complicity). 7) Small abuses can have larger, unintended consequences. Eg. White background photography has its merits, but it is particularly prone to abuse. I had mentioned earlier Tropical Herping’s ‘Assembly-lining’ of collected subjects (to be fair, this poor practice is common amongst herpetologists, as well as most photographers using this methodology, I myself assembly-lined arthropods to increase efficiency). Quickly cycling through these collected subjects is the most efficient means of shooting white backgrounds. However, imagine a scenario in which an amphibian infected with chytridiomycosis is placed on the white board (or ‘waiting area’ like a plastic bag/pen/etc…) and is then exchanged soon after with another amphibian, and then another, all within a relatively short period of time. One may have unintentionally contributed to the spread of an extremely virulent pathogen, proven responsible for amphibian declines worldwide, and in this case, may have introduced the disease into additional populations, and locations. This is a hypothetical to be sure, but a plausible one, and certainly deserving of consideration.
I hope that I’ve managed to convey why it’s important to confront abusive behaviours in wildlife photography, which can carry unintended consequences, and harm more than just the wildlife, but also bystanders in the industry, not to mention the very cause for which the abusers supposedly stand. Since I have used Tropical Herping as an example of the symptoms of the the systemic problems within the industry, I think that it’s fair at this point, to indicate some of the genuine good which they do, which their advocates rightly laud.
Firstly, their research represents important contributions to the body of scientific knowledge as a whole, but also buttresses conservation efforts. By helping to provide scientific evidence for the creation and maintenance of protected areas, especially those which are particularly vulnerable, like Ecuador’s Pacific coastal rainforests, they are an active advocate for conservation, and the money they are able to raise has real, concrete benefits and results.
Their posters and books provide beautiful images which not only serve to engage the public, but also to inform and inspire perhaps a younger and more responsible generation, and galvanize them into the field of conservation. Their guidebooks represent some of the clearest, cleanest representations I’ve seen, and are undoubtedly helpful for professionals, and amateurs alike.
It gives me great pleasure to enthusiastically endorse these positive elements of their business, nevertheless, I can’t allow these very positive, and encouraging achievements to blind me to the very real, and troubling problems with their business model. I am heartened to hear that many of their friends haven’t experienced the same problems that I have, and hope that that’s an indicator that what I witnessed was an exception. But as I have mentioned before, these abuses are symptoms of a larger, systemic, industry-wide problem. Look no further than the recent disqualification announcement of Marcio Cabral, who used a taxidermy specimen in his wildlife photographer of the year (category winner) and Asferico competition winning entry. The full article can be accessed HERE. This now represents two winning and then subsequently disqualified entries into the most prestigious wildlife competition in the world (the first being the notorious ‘loan wolf’ 2009 grand prize winner Jose Luis Rodriguez, whose use of a tame subject violated competition rules). Both contestants have denied the allegations, but regardless, have been stripped of their prizes following an investigation by the competition committee. One has to ask oneself, if these elaborate deceptions are making it to the upper echelons of prestigious competitions, then just how many are circulating amongst us, in an environment which demands no accountability, and rewards a man-made concept of beauty, masquerading as natural?
*Thanks to Gil Wizen for putting me on the track of Graham’s hierarchy of Disagreement.