“Hi, so this is another random thought...I’m behind this
Jeep that has those little…stick figure… things about the people in
their family. And this one happens to
have some pets, and there was someone earlier today that also had pets…I think
it was cats. Um...and I was
thinking…what do you do when your pet dies and you no longer have the four cats that you have on the back of your
Jeep? Do you get up there with like a razor blade…and scrape them
out? Do you feel compelled to get
another cat just so that your Jeep isn’t lying about all the quote “members of
your family”? I was just thinking this and I want to know…that is all. This message is ridiculous...I’m kind of going to apologize for it.”
My best friend, Marianne – message left on my
voicemail
“Kindness to animals builds a better world for all of
us.”
--Bumper sticker I saw while driving--
It has been far too long since I started this topic, but
life has happened between February and now when I began thinking about
animals. I suppose it means I’ve had
more time to process the different books and ideas that I’ve read? In reality, I think it helped me narrow down
my topic quite a bit. Whereas this was
at one time going to be a two or three-parter, I think I’m going to just write
it and be done. I may return to this
topic at some point in the future, but I sort of just want it to be over so I
can move on to a new idea. The animal
topic is a little stale in my brain. My
old computer did break and I have been in the process of getting my new one set
up, which has brought about a writing delay.
But I think that over-thinking about pets has contributed to my sloooow
writing speed. Let’s get started. Then we can be done. :)
Of the books I got out of the library, the one I read in its
entirety was called Pets in America by Katherine C. Grier. I was dubious of it at first (refer back to
my attitude toward pets displayed in the post from February 29 and you will see
why), but as I got reading, I really found her research and thoughts to be an
interesting commentary on people and on American progress. I was especially interested by Grier’s ideas
about the relationship between human choice and pets. (“Choice” is a word that gets thrown around
quite a bit these days, so why not associate it with animals, too?) She also discussed how the roles of
domesticated animals have changed throughout history (obviously, in America specifically)
and how animals going from being workers to being commodities has majorly
changed the concept of what it means to have animals around the house. Before we can jump into a specific discussion
of what this all means, a little background might help. (And please know that this entire discussion
of animals deals specifically with domesticated animals, not wild animals.)
There are many ideas about what makes an animal a
“pet.” Keith Thomas, who was one of the
first people to author a pet-keeping history book, said that the way to
determine if an animal is a pet is (1) it’s allowed in the house, (2) it’s
given a name, and (3) it’s never eaten.
On the other hand, Grier’s definition of a pet is simply that it’s an
animal a human being chooses as special or set apart. It’s an unequal relationship between the
human and the animal that is completely dependent on human beings. If there are no people, there are no
pets. I tend to find this definition a
little broader and more inclusive. People create pets, and
those pets can be a friendly squirrel you feed nuts to outside your doorwall
or it can be a loyal dog you’ve had for years and years. Grier’s definition also allows for the
sometimes-contradictory role of animals that can be seen throughout history.
In early America, long before the settlers arrived, animals
were pets, but they were also workers, hunters, sacrifices, and
companions. Sometimes, they were even
food. This is an excellent example of
how human choice places labels on animals – one day, your dog could be your pet
and companion, but if you run out of food and you’re going to starve, your
choice to make your dog into dinner is one that is entirely up to you. To the pre-settler Americans, animals’ roles
were decided entirely by necessity.
As society grew and changed in America, necessity was still
the foremost way animals were defined. A
variety of animals played a variety of roles on the farms of early
America. Dogs were often hunters,
protectors, and herders. Cats were a
crucial part of every home as they helped control the mouse and rat
population. Pigs also ate scraps and
garbage in this time before dumpsters and garbage bags. Horses and oxen worked in the fields, pulling plows and helping to haul down trees to clear the land. Chickens, sheep, and cows provided needed
items – milk, wool, and eggs – but then they often became food for the family. Each animal had a job to do, and human life
and growth depended on them. Besides
these obvious ways that animals served on farms, they also were excellent
sources of revenue. Whether it was an
animal’s product that was on the market (eggs, wool, etc.) or the animal
itself, at this time, animals were considered pieces of property.
However, a whole different side of animals’ usefulness had
to do with issues outside of food, money, and work. Because of the enormous amount of work they
did, animals needed to be taken care of, and they were unable to take care of
themselves. So, parents had the ability
to teach their kids about kindness and charity to animals, which Grier suggests
taught them how to help people in society who might fall into the same camp –
dependent on the help of others to survive.
Animals also helped with a much more…delicate, shall we say?...situation
in families: explaining the birds and the bees.
Children were privy to the facts of life from an early age when the
animals on their farms procreated, and it helped Ma and Pa avoid that
sometimes-awkward discussion of how we get more animals and people in this
world. They could even help children
experience death in a real way that prepared them for the inevitable death of a
sibling or family member, suddenly or otherwise. However, no matter what role they played,
overall, during the 18th century, animals were animals. Discussion over. A farm animal might become a family favorite,
but it was usually understood that an animal had an animal job to do first.
The 19th century is when things began to change regarding
animals. As people moved from the
country to the city, they also began to view animals in a different light. Obviously, animals were still needed for
food. They also were used for vermin
control and garbage duty. (In fact, in
the 1840s, pigs and hogs were helpful street cleaners. Butchers let them loose in burgeoning cities,
and the creatures would eat garbage, manure, discarded scraps, and dead
animals. Not only would the streets be
clean, but the butchers wouldn’t have to pay to fatten the animals up before
they were butchered.) Animals still
played an important role as workers. However,
this was when pet culture really began to take off. People kept birds to quell the silences in
their homes. Breeding dogs became an
activity that upper class people enjoyed, and the rise of pure-bred dogs helped
turn dogs into pets rather than just sheep herders. Societies and statutes to protect animals
from cruelty popped up during this time.
Pet stores also became more popular, and the idea of having an animal
solely as a pet changed America’s view on animals. No longer were animals workers first, cuddly
creatures second. The chance for an
animal’s entire role to be that of companion was truly possible for the first
time in history.
1840 to 1940 saw the rise of the modern pet industry. It was during this time that animals became
commodities more than anything else.
Animals were being reared with the express purpose of becoming a pet,
and people were willing to spend disposable income on bringing an animal into
the family. The fact that people even
had disposable income to spend on something as frivolous as a pet tells you
something about where America was in her development as a nation. No longer were animals strictly necessities,
but instead were something kept around for pure enjoyment.
Now, 60% of American homes include a pet and 34.4 billion
dollars was spent on the pet industry in 2004.
Depending on the part of the country, animals can still be found that
are workers, but in most cities and suburbs, animals are America’s furry
friends. Something like 64.2 million
people own pets, and I find that people think you’re strange if you don’t like
animals or want one around. As I said
back in February, my students I used to teach thought I was weird that I didn’t
want a pet around, especially since I live alone. In relationships, getting a pet is seen as
one of those steps you take before you really commit to having kids. I know people who say they have a “grand-dog”
since their children haven’t provided them with grandkids. Overall, the role that pets play in our lives
today is drastically different than the one they played 200 years ago. It is this major difference that got me
thinking.
(Obviously, this is just a quick overview. But, I think this whirlwind history lesson
provides the necessary foundation for understanding how America’s attitude
toward animals has changed and, therefore, to understand the following
discussion.)
As I said up above, Grier’s suggestion that human choice is
what makes an animal into a pet really fascinated me. The most poignant realization that I had while
reading this book was that until the 19th century (when pet culture took off),
animals were always animals first and pets second. As animals, they played a specific role in
people’s homes and on their farms, and while people recognized their cuddly
potential, they kept animals in what they believed to be their place – outside,
producing their animal products, and following their animal instincts. Once people (in the cities and suburbs, at
least) stopped needing animals as workers, that label of “animal” became less
important. Animals chosen as pets could
be defined as their owners wanted them to be defined, and this change in
definition has brought about some interesting ramifications for animals. Cats get declawed because they might tear the
sofa; some dogs are muzzled or “debarked” because their barking bothers people;
other animals are dressed in sweaters or shoes simply because their owners
think it’s cute. Even the idea of
spaying or neutering pets (thanks for the reminder, Bob Barker) can be seen as
a form of owners attempting to define their pets as they want them to be
defined. The animal’s definition as
“animal” takes a back seat to its definition as “so-and-so’s pet.”
By re-defining an animal as a pet and reducing the
importance of its “animal” definition, it makes the animal 100% dependent on
its “chooser.” In many ways, I see it as
evidence of the narcissism that has steadily grown and now pervades our society. Maybe that seems like a huge jump, but if
animals’ central role is to provide their owners with love, companionship, and
entertainment (and not to bark too loud or mess up the sofa), that role is
focused on the owner and what he or she needs from the animal. I recognize that I am sort of focusing on the
extreme here, and in no way am I suggesting that people don’t treat their pets
well and provide them with love and companionship, as well. But, since animals are now commodities to be
bought and sold, that relationship between a pet and its owner is one that is
being forced on the animal (and the owner, if you want to get technical). The pet-owner is the dominant party in the
situation – they are doing the choosing, the buying, and the providing – and
therefore the pet is subject to the owner.
In any situation where one party is dominant and one is less so, the
question has to be asked how the needs of the less-dominant are being taken
into consideration. I thought about this
a lot while Grier was discussing birds as pets, actually. How often is the image of the “caged bird”
used to describe a person who wants to fly and be free but cannot because of
his or her life “cage”? With that in
mind, I wonder how birds feel about being pets.
If a bird was made to fly and it can’t because it is being kept as a
pet, I think there’s a pretty good argument somewhere in there that perhaps the
dominant owner isn’t really considering the needs of the less-dominant pet.
Now, all that being said, I don’t want anyone out there
thinking that I’m anti-pet and that everyone should just let animals run and be
free in our society. Neither am I
suggesting that everyone who owns pets is selfish and narcissistic. I have plenty of friends and family members
who are excellent pet owners and who do everything in their power to give their
pets what they need in order to live happy, healthy lives. I am not going to start picketing outside of
animal adoption events or fire-bombing the Humane Society. In fact, just seeing articles about the wild
dog problem in downtown Detroit or reading that the current population of feral
cats is somewhere in the ballpark of 40 million is enough for me to see why
it’s great that people have domesticated dogs and cats and keep them as pets. :) I
think that pet-keeping can be wonderful, fulfilling, and humane for all parties
involved. What I am trying to highlight
is the fact that how our country has changed has also brought about some
critical changes in animal-ownership. We
have come to a place in our history where we don’t need animals the way our
forefathers did. Outside of animals
eaten as food, many people in America never consider animals as anything other
than companions. But because of this
change (whether people like this idea or not), owning a pet is forcing a
relationship between an animal and a person.
Generations past had animals that worked on their farms that eventually
might became a part of the family. Those
animals had the luxury of being animals first and kept pets second.
In this day and age, most pet-owners don’t gradually create a relationship
with an animal, but instead say, “Let’s get a pet!” and go to the Humane
Society or Pet Smart or some adoption event and buy a pet. Because of that human choice, the animal
magically becomes a pet. Then once the
animal’s designation is as a pet, a role has been created for that animal to
fill based on its owner’s needs or capabilities. By creating a role or identity for that
animal, it is, in essence, turned into a dependent because without the animal
being identified as a pet, it is still just an animal. Anything that is 100% dependent on someone
else is no longer an independent being.
So, for example, if a cat gets declawed because then it won’t rip up the
sofa, that cat can no longer survive in the wild. That cat is totally screwed if it ever had to
defend itself. The owner of the cat has
defined its role based on his or her needs (and the sofa’s needs) but has
created a situation where the cat can no longer survive without the owner. It is this idea – that by turning animals
into dependent beings we remove their ability to function independently – that
takes me to my final point.
One of Grier’s ideas that really struck me was that
pet-keeping is a reflection of how we treat all the dependents in our
society. This got me thinking about the
government, actually, and welfare.
People living on welfare in this country are considered dependents. They need help from someone in order
to make ends meet, or at least that’s how they represent themselves. The current definition of “dependent” is “one
relying on another for support.”
However, notice that the definition says “support” not “survival”. “Support” suggests that a more capable force
provides assistance so the needy party can continue functioning as
normal. That is not the same thing as
total reliance. It’s the difference
between a rolling oxygen tank and a respirator.
I would argue that most people in the 21st century who hear the word
“dependent” think “respirator” and reject the idea that a person can be dependent
on another for help and still function independently, as well. (For a society that is increasingly relative, I find myself, at times, amazed at how cut and dried people can be.) If this is the prevailing attitude, it
creates a situation where those who are dependent on welfare for help become
re-defined as “those who must rely on another for survival.” With this new definition comes a new identity
for the poor. They aren’t identified as
independent human beings (who need a little help) but instead are thrust into
the role of completely dependent human beings.
The poor are expected to depend on the government for what they
need. The government has chosen to deal
with this by creating a system that identifies those in need, labels them as
dependent, and then systematically removes their belief that they can survive
without the government’s help.
Americans, I would argue, struggle with seeing domesticated
animals as animals first (with an independent role to play), but instead tend
to make them pets first. Likewise, I
believe we also struggle with seeing the poor as independent human beings
first. We forget sometimes that no
matter how poor people are, they are still human beings who are able to make
choices. Now, by no means do I suggest
we just leave the poor to fend for themselves.
I believe help is necessary for some people. But when that assistance creates a role for
the poor that supersedes their identity as independent human beings, it is no
longer healthy help. In America, I worry
that the relationship between the poor and the government is such that the poor
rely completely on the government for everything – survival, identity, and a
future. And if our treatment of animals
is any indication of how we treat dependents in our country, then I also worry
that the narcissism that is so blatantly obvious in how some pet-owners treat
their pets will bleed over into how the government treats (is treating?) the
poor. When animals live an entirely
domesticated and dependent life, they eventually lose their ability to fend for
themselves. Sending them out into the
world would kill them, and they require the protection of their more powerful
owner in order to survive from day to day.
Well, the same thing can happen with people.
