While reading Diary of a Citizen Scientist I remember at one point I was reading a description of the beetles and their activity and I was like “wow, she is really anthropomorphizing these beetles”. Coincidentally enough, right after I having this thought I read the following paragraph, “Of course, this is shameless anthropomorphization, ascribing human qualities to non-human things. And I do feel a little ashamed, out of habit and cultural training. In truth, though, I am no longer convinced that ascribing human qualities to nonhuman things is all that bad. Maybe we don’t ascribe them enough” (Russell 39).

I had this thought because I have always learned anthropomorphizing is not a great thing to do. However, I cannot seem to remember the justifications behind why. I remember this has been mentioned in various discussions, but I do not know if we discussed exactly why it is a bad thing. Russell calling this idea into question makes me consider rethinking it. Out of curiosity I went looking for why the use of anthropomorphizing may be frowned upon or why it may be an acceptable thing to do:

“The stated enemy is the assumption that their cognitive processes mirror our own complicated mental analyses, instead of the preferred notion that lower species are purer examples of stimulus/response behaviors. If we were to assume that they’re like us in that regard, objective scientific findings might be muddled by dreaded subjectivity.”
http://thebark.com/content/real-problem-anthropomorphism

“We are simply applying things we’re familiar with, like emotions, to these things to help us understand our surroundings. It’s a lot easier to explain a prancing goat as being “happy” than it is to study the behavior further and determine that the dance is part of a mating ritual. Anthropomorphizing is the point at which human curiosity meets human laziness.”
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/animals-happy1.htm

“Many researchers now recognize that we must be anthropomorphic when we discuss animal emotions but that if we do it carefully, what I call biocentric anthropomoprhism, we can still give due consideration to the animals’ point of view.”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/200906/anthropomorphic-double-talk-can-animals-be-happy-not-unhappy-no

“Anthropomorphism in and of itself is neither good nor bad. How it is used by humans to refer to actions or motivations of non-human animals, however, may range from the ridiculous to injurious. What follows are examples of classical vs. critical anthropomorphism (being the acceptable, reasonable type)”.
http://www.anapsid.org/ethology.html

From my research it would seem that some believe it is a bad thing as when we anthropomorphize we assume the thing of focus has the same emotions and/or cognitive ability, while others find it to be acceptable if used properly. I am curious to hear what others in the class and our Professors think about this concept of anthropomorphization? Is it a bad thing, and if so why do you think so? If it might not be such a bad thing, why do you think that?

During our alone time in Sullivan Park today I realized I seem to experience nature in a childlike way. I would see, hear, smell, or touch something and my thoughts revolved around “ooh”, “ahh”, “what”, “why”, and “how”. I was so curious about this and that, jumping from thing to thing like a five year old in a candy store. In fact after the experience I kept thinking about how I was pretty much just playing a game of I-Spy with the things around me. So I thought I might share a few of my I-Spy finds with you all:

During our enjoyable excursion numerous observations, questions, and thoughts were brought up; it was really nice to hear what this experience brought to people’s minds. While my observations, thoughts, and ideas about this experience covered a broad range and hopped from place to place, I found for much of the time I took note of change in wilderness flavor Leopold mentions in Flambeau during the trip and the immersion into this wilderness experience I felt as a result.

Starting off, it too seemed like when we set off the wilderness at the confluence of the Delaware and the Lehigh was on its “last legs” as in Flambeau. As we sat there for some time discussing the reading I took in the setting. The massive dam seemed intimidating, a large dead tree caught in its grasp. The large concrete ramp we sat on seemed barren, a desert of pavement alongside the river. The constant screeching of cars passing over the grating of the Free Bridge’s floor rang through the scene. As we sat there all these sorts of things and more seemed to put this river’s wilderness on its last legs. However, once the trip had commenced I was pleased to see the restoration of the wilderness flavors and the corresponding feeling of being immersed in this experience and surrounded by this wilderness.

As we continued on the wilderness flavors became more apparent and abundant, and those infringing on them much more sparse. The sounds of the birds and insects along the river became louder and more apparent as we moved forward. Signs of wildlife became more noticeable in the form of things like bounding deer, bubbles of some aquatic animal rising to the surface of the water, birds stretching and drying their wings for flight, and much more. As these restored wilderness flavors exposed themselves and captivated my senses, I felt more in tune with this wilderness around me. It was easier to observe more of and some of the smaller details of the wilderness as these wilderness flavors became more apparent, better enabling immersion into this experience.

While on our ramble on campus the other day I realized there were elements of nature right in front of my face that I had not noticed before. I found the portion of the excursion in which we observed and analyzed Kirby Hall of Civil Rights left me with lingering questions and thoughts.

This was so fascinating to me because never had I really considered nature would have an influence on a manmade structure that ultimately supplants nature. Furthermore, I had somehow managed to never notice nature had an influence on a building right here on campus that I walk by nearly everyday. From the numerous animals and branches on the elaborate entrance to the decorative flowers on columns in the foyer and a strange stack of acorns carved into the marble above an interior doorway, I began to wonder why images of nature make their way into the manmade world.

It is clear nature has influenced the manmade world, but I found myself wondering what motivates this incorporation of nature into manmade structure? Is this motivation due to the symbolism we find in certain aspects of nature, to their aesthetically pleasing elements, to a combination of the two, or to something else entirely? While during our rambling I found some of the embellishments of nature incorporated to be symbolic and some to be decorative, but I wonder if there was more symbolism or purpose to the things I overlooked or marked off as decorative features. Not only is this symbolism and use of nature in the manmade world something I want to better understand, but it is also something I think I will be much more conscious of from here on out.

Here are some more examples I found while exploring online!

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/showcasing/women-architects/