You say that modernist zoos, which you date from around 1800 to the mid-20th century, have no social value and are not worth keeping. Why not?

Zoos have always been a form of entertainment, not the centers of education and conservation to which they now aspire. Captive animal displays are a remnant from modernist times, and their appeal is less than postmodern entertainments like computer games and movies with special effects.

You say that as soon as an animal is put into a zoo, it stops being part of the natural world. Do visitors to zoos suffer the same fate?

Contemporary humans have never been part of the natural world, so the question is moot. We live inside the social constraints of self-made cages. The confusion arises when zoos attempt to convince us that “naturalistic” exhibits are superior to bare cages, when in fact neither can ever be more natural than the other.

You say that we cannot demonstrate the truth of anything about the natural world. Can we find Nature at all in postmodern times?

Nature in postmodern times-or in any other time-has never been accessible. By definition Nature (the Other) stands apart from us and is unknowable.

What would a postmodern zoo be like-virtual, hyperreal, animated?

A postmodern zoo would exist in hyperreality. You might visit it by slipping on a pair of goggles. Strangely, the genetic manipulation of animals that exist nowhere except in captivity renders them postmodern artifacts, but exhibiting these same creatures in a conventional zoo can only be a modernist presentation.

How have your experiences as an aquarium director shaped your attitudes towards zoos?

By studying captive animals and the visitors who came to see them, I formed the concepts that eventually were solidified in my book.

What do you hope your book will accomplish?

I hope it offers novel concepts about captive animals and their place in postmodern society and, in the end, helps propel contemporary cultural theory dealing with animal issues to new heights.

–Lorna Marie McManus