Meaning, memory and misogyny: LIFE photographer Hansel Mieth's monkey portrait

Afterimage, Sept-Oct, 2005 by Dolores Flamiano

It takes little imagination to read the narratives surrounding Mieth's monkey portrait as a highly sexualized discourse complete with "lewd meanings, sexual lust, and the unrestrained body." And the impassioned and highly personal responses of readers to the monkey's image suggest that many of them used the raw material of the monkey to construct ideas about themselves and others, including a despised other (the German soldier to whom the monkey was compared). The editors of LIFE (all male) and many viewers seemed to read the "misogynist monkey" as a mirror for their own misogyny. This conclusion is supported by the textual background of the photograph, whereby the monkey is set upon by "innumerable chattering females" who are also sexually aggressive. Such a reading could be analyzed as a male response to changing sex roles in American society, specifically to the perceived threat of female freedom (economic, social and sexual) and female vociferousness. In good hegemonic fashion, the editor's explanation of the monkey's unhappy state works to normalize gender ideology and misogyny. Upon closer examination, however, the narrative that LIFE imposed on the monkey seems far-fetched at best. The monkey's angry and forlorn expression is more likely the result of his treatment by humans. He had recently been captured in his native India and subjected to a long and brutal journey across the ocean to Puerto Rico, where he was destined to live out his days in captivity, subjected to castration and other experimentation. Instead of framing the monkey as an unwilling participant in Western science, the editors constructed a narrative in which he became a potent symbol of patriarchy and misogyny.

MONKEY AS WINDOW: LIFE'S EDITORIAL PRACTICES AND PREJUDICES

Mieth's monkey photograph provides a fascinating glimpse into the editorial process during the early years of LIFE, as well as the personalities of key players in the organization and the place of photographers in the LIFE hierarchy. The recollections of Mieth and others reveal that editorial decisions were not always motivated by traditional journalistic values such as newsworthiness. Rather, LIFE often valued sensationalism and visual humor above other considerations. Although he was the subject of serious research into childhood diseases, the monkey was transformed into a sexist joke. The notion of a lone monkey fleeing "the chatter of innumerable females" seemed to resonate widely with LIFE's staff and readers. Thompson credits managing editor John Shaw Billings with recognizing and exploiting the visual value of the monkey picture:

   One Mieth project caused me to disagree with Billings's picture
   judgment. She had shot what we expected to be an essay at a Puerto
   Rican medical lab which used rhesus monkeys. It was well researched
   and full of eloquent pictures. Billings riffled through and came upon
   a lone male standing chest deep in water, looking forlorn but
   glowering. Apparently he had fled from amorous females. Billings, who
   usually disdained anthropomorphism, immediately labeled it "The
   Misogynist" and laid it out for "Picture of the Week," setting the
   rest of the photos aside. I protested feebly about all those other
   excellent pictures going to waste, and he brushed me off with, "Oh,
   those can run anytime." They never did, but Billings was right. The
   monkey was a classic and showed up on the walls of male hangouts like
   filling stations, machine shops, and bars all over America. (11)