Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

A specific logic of a “living” habitat simulating a natural habitat has never been thoroughly analyzed in the context of the Völkerschau. The aim of this presentation is broader inquiry into the relationship between ethnographic shows, the idea of habitat, and the construction of otherness.

Paper long abstract

Various venues (zoos, parks, gardens) were used to organize ethnographic shows, a cultural phenomenon whose reach extended far beyond colonial empires in the latter half of the 19th and the first decades of the 20th century. A specific logic of public spectacles of non-European otherness as a “living” habitat – first developed by Carl Hagenbeck – was based on “material mobility”, aliveness, and convincing expression of foreign space. Hagenbeck’s habitat accommodated living people, foreign and local fauna and flora, water and other kinds of natural resources in order to recreate “natural habitat” of the Other in European outdoor space. The meaning and role of the idea of (natural and living) habitat, has never been thoroughly analyzed in the context of the Völkerschau.

The aim of this presentation is broader inquiry into the relationship between ethnographic shows, the idea of habitat, and the construction of otherness. With the assumption that the meaning and value of habitat is culturally constructed and contextualized, my research questions focus on how the simulated natural habitat was constructed, narrated and consumed within the framework of ethnographic shows, what was the role of the concept of the habitat in the process of naturalizing the Other, and how this concept was used in the process of (re)producing imperial knowledge about indigenous people and the development of mechanisms of control and dominance.

The bulk of the sources for this presentation consists of visual and textual material on ethnographic shows. This presentation applies a postcolonial approach and critical visual methodologies.