Analysis Of Charles Siebert's An Elephant Crackup

In “An Elephant Crackup?”, Charles Siebert partly attributes the belligerence of the recent generations of elephants, the animals considered to be among the most intelligently advanced, to the lack of a matriarch, a powerful female figure. He takes an example of the case of the last elephant survivors at Queen Elizabeth National Park, where the elderly female elephant was the one who “gathered the survivors together from their various hideouts”, “led them back out as one group”, and “held the group together [as] the population all the while slowly beginning to rebound” (Siebert 358). The idea that the sustainability of the group is dependent on its leading female is rather surprising, in the sense that in the wilderness, where the determination of roles among the members of the herds is largely, or even solely, influenced by physical ability, it would be more logical that the males are in control. Surprisingly, there are several researches that prove the opposite, that despite lacking physical advantage, female leaders are vital to the behavior and existence of the group itself. This phenomenon is not only interesting, but also very useful and fundamental to the effort of improving the aggression of the elephants, and through that, the relationship between elephants and humans. Also, there are certain ways that the “political” and social order of the matriarchal societies in elephant can be held accountable for the sake of this process.