Topic 9: The Embedding of Animals in Human Families PDF

 Topic 9: The Embedding of Animals in Human Families a person, particularly a child, that was favoured, When you have completed this topic, you will: indulged or spoiled. In fact, it wasn’t until the 16th...

 Topic 9: The Embedding of Animals in Human Families a person, particularly a child, that was favoured, When you have completed this topic, you will: indulged or spoiled. In fact, it wasn’t until the 16th know what the word ‘pet’ means and century that the definition of pet came to include what factors determine which species animals. Even then it was mostly used to refer to are kept as pets orphaned lambs or calves who were tamed and kept for pleasure or company, but which were still be familiar with possible explanations perceived to be animals – and who eventually got for the origins of pet keeping and for why pets remain popular in modern eaten just like other farmed animals. societies According to the current definition of the word ‘pet’ be aware of some of the costs and it can only be used when referring to an animal. Do benefits of pet keeping, for both you agree with this or can ‘real’ animals be replaced humans and animals kept as pets by pet rocks or robotic animals? We’ll talk about this later. have considered whether living animals could be replaced psychologically by Consistent with what we discussed previously about ‘robotic’ or ‘virtual’ pets roles for animals being culturally defined, species kept as pets vary widely across time and place. The range of animals kept as pets is quite wide, but it is not unlimited. While almost all cultures, world-wide, In earlier topics we considered how our indulge in pet-keeping, only a few species in each understanding of animals is only partly a function of culture make it into human lives as pets. Why do you the animals themselves, being equally if not more think this is? dependent on our social and cultural surroundings. In this topic we start analysing some of our current relationships with animals, beginning with those we include in our families. As we progress through this topic, consider the types of biological relationships we discussed previously and where our relationships with companion animals might fit within this scheme. Some people think of companion animals as parasites that target our innate tendency to nurture small, helpless looking creatures, especially those resembling cute human babies. Others think of the relationship as being more mutualistic, with humans potentially getting just as many benefits as our animal companions. One reason is suitability. Those animals we keep as pets are generally those that are pre-adapted for this What is a pet? role in some way, perhaps because they are less likely Let’s begin with what we mean by the word pet. The to be fearful of humans or because they are less likely Oxford English dictionary defines a pet as, “any to cause us harm, or just because they are small animal that is domesticated or tamed and kept as a enough for us to easily keep captive. Availability is favourite, or treated with indulgence and fondness” also important. Until recently it would have been (Murray, 1909). This is a relatively recent definition impossible for anyone but Indigenous Australians to because the word pet has its origins in the French keep animals like dingos and wallabies as pets, simply word ‘petit’, which simply means small. In the early because these animals did not exist in other countries. 1500’s, it was used in Western societies to describe Characteristics like culture and religion are also important. Dogs are a terrific example of this. In most of bones and other artefacts, all over the place, but Western countries, dogs are perceived almost this evidence does not reveal the purpose of animal exclusively as pets, although they originally keeping for early human societies. One theory is that performed a variety of important roles like pulling hunter-gatherers collected small reptiles, mammals, carts, guarding properties and helping control and insects and birds for their children as a means of protect livestock. In other countries, as we saw educating them about animal behaviour. Playing previously, dogs are perceived primarily as a food with the animals gave the children valuable source. In other places people like to watch dogs fight experience in handling and predicting animals – for or race as a sport, and some cultures consider dogs future reference when they were required to hunt to be unclean, so much so that most people in these these animals. cultures do not want to encounter them at all. Imagine what a shock it must be for these people if they migrate and suddenly find themselves surrounded by people who keep dogs in the house and even let them on (or in) the bed. That would be like Westerners moving to a country where sewer rats or vultures are popular as pets. Japanese children, meanwhile, often keep insects as pets, resulting in a veterinary specialty unheard of in Western cultures (Podberscek et al., 2000). This theory sounds feasible because it is quite common in the animal world to see adult predators provide live prey for their young to manipulate – tiger cubs, for example, learn about stalking, catching and killing by ‘playing’ with animals provided by their parents. It might be difficult to imagine human children ‘playing’ with animals without becoming emotionally attached to them, and thereby finding them more difficult to hunt, kill, and eat rather than less difficult, but times have changed and, even today, human hunters often feel a strong sense of Origins of pet keeping respect and affection for the animals they hunt, One of the things we know about pet keeping is that believing that all animals should be treated with care it goes back thousands of years; with early hunter- and respect, especially prey animals. Often it is gatherer societies being the first to keep pets. Some believed that humans and animals are closely people, notably Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, connected and that the souls/spirits of hunted argued that pet-keeping was the prelude to all animal animals could return to take vengeance upon the domestication. Traditionally, it was thought that early hunter should they not be treated well. hunter-gatherer and horticulturalist societies were A competing theory is that early humans may have subsistence societies, where humans had difficult kept pets not to learn about animals but because lives and little time for leisure. Researchers have now they were emotionally compelled to do so. There is found evidence that early hunter-gatherer and no doubt that humans have a strong need to farming societies enjoyed more leisure time than was nurture – without this, our own infants, dependent previously thought. The inhabitants were also on adults for many years, would never survive. generally healthy and well-nourished, so they may There is also no doubt that there is o ften a very have had the time and resources required to keep special relationship between pets and their owners pets. But why would they choose to do this? or guardians. We like to think of ourselves as being This is an important question for psychologists and special in this respect, with our spoiled dogs and one that we cannot adequately answer. Scientists pampered cats, but even pre-industrial cultures have found evidence of animal keeping, in the form treated their pet animals very differently than other animals. In some of these cultures, women would very clear that keeping pets must have been even suckle their young pets, including puppies, advantageous to some members of our species, bear cubs, and baby monkeys. I’m guessing that few having advantages in terms of survival and modern Westerners have gone to this extreme! reproduction, or it would not have persisted as such a common behaviour. Perhaps families who kept pets and understood animals were more likely to survive when times got hard, being able to access food and clothing that other families did not have. Perhaps pet keepers were better able to predict predator behaviour and therefore did not get eaten as often. Maybe pets kept the rodent population under control and therefore reduced exposure to some of the diseases carried by rodents. Perhaps having pets hanging around the camp meant that there was less accumulation of rubbish and sewerage, as well as an early warning system for when a neighbouring tribe was approaching. Regardless of how it started, the fact that pet keeping is so common today probably means that, at some point in the past, it gave our ancestors a better chance of survival than those who did not keep pets. Why do humans continue to keep pets? Our pet keeping history, then, is consistent with what we learned about the Biophilia hypothesis – people who liked (or at least tolerated) the company of animals more than likely had a survival advantage at some time in our distant past. This does not explain why so many of us continue to keep pets, however, when we no longer have to learn about animal behaviour to survive. Nor does it explain why so This suckling provided an exceptionally rich source of many modern humans feel so strongly attached food for the young animals but also many psychologically to their animal companions. opportunities for close emotional bonding. When mammals, including human mothers, suckle their To demonstrate to you how strong our attachment to young, it releases a brain chemical called oxytocin, companion animals can be, imagine that some kind which promotes feelings of pleasure and emotional of natural disaster happens, trapping you in your bonding (Olmert, 2010). Since suckling young house with only your pet for company. Would you animals would have a similar physiological effect, it leave your pet behind if rescuers insisted that you do is probably the case that these women became very so? Would you consider eating your pet if there psychologically attached to the animals they suckled. appeared to be no alternative? Could you leave Given these strong emotional attachments, it is not behind or eat a pet belonging to someone else? Why surprising that humans developed special attitudes is it that, following natural disasters and even at towards animals kept as pets. In many societies the other times, we have animal shelters to care for lost killing of pets for food, work or other resources is or abandoned dogs and cats, but not most other largely taboo, even in times of hardship. People of all species? cultures also express grief at the loss of their pets One anthropological explanation for the general (Serpell, 1995). reluctance of humans to kill or use animals that have So perhaps our ancestors kept pets to learn about been kept as pets is that these animals are so well animal behaviour, or perhaps they kept them integrated into human society that their because doing so felt good emotionally. Perhaps it consumption is, in essence, equivalent to was a combination of both explanations or something cannibalism. Is this how you feel? Would eating a else that nobody has thought of yet. Regardless, it is dog or cat be the same thing psychologically as eating another human? Would leaving one behind during a natural disaster be the same as leaving behind a family member? The answer to these questions would be yes for some people but no for others. People may have different attitudes and beliefs about pets depending on their culture, previous experiences, age, social and economic class. To go back to our central question, however, why is it that modern humans continue to keep pets? Is it simply the case that we are slaves to the psychological mechanisms of attraction that developed during our evolutionary history, or is What do you think about the pets as social parasites there more to it than that? Some people do argue theory? Is it possible that dogs and cats, and other that pets are social parasites; that we keep as pets cute little animals, do practically the same thing as those animals that have perfected the art of European cuckoos to gullible humans, sucking us exploiting our innate instincts to care for human into looking after their offspring by making them infants. According to this theory we are kind of irresistibly cute! This might explain why some people tricked into caring for our pets. They take advantage keep pets, but do you really think it explains why of us and get heaps of benefits, while we incur a millions of people do so. Pet keeping is extremely range of costs (Archer, 1997). widespread worldwide. In fact, the only place where pets are relatively scarce is Africa. Even here it seems like the absence of pets may be a relatively new phenomenon, with pet keeping being more common in pre-colonial days. How likely is it that most people in Western countries keep pets simply because they are sucked into it like the helpless victims of European cuckoos? This doesn’t sound very plausible, especially considering the contribution of the Pet Industry to the Australian Economy. Another explanation for pet keeping in the modern world is that it is something done by individuals who lack the ability to relate easily with other humans, and who subsequently use pets as social substitutes. The European cuckoo is an example of what is meant by the term ‘social parasite’. The female cuckoo There is probably some truth to this idea but, really, never builds her own nest. Instead, she waits until do we want to argue that over 60% of all modern she can locate a nest containing eggs that have been Western households contain at least one person who left unattended. She then enters this nest, kicks out is socially inept? And this would have to include one of the existing eggs, and lays her egg in its movie stars like Hugh Jackman, who bought a dog place, all in under ten seconds, after which time she for his son, and Hilary Duff, who has a pet dog called leaves. When the real owners of the nest return, they Lola. Many very successful and high functioning fail to realise that anything is wrong and spend the people keep pets, even though they have very rich next few months looking after a baby cuckoo, even social relationships with other humans. Unless we if this baby bird is larger than either parent and are prepared to argue that all of these people are requires a huge effort. Even worse, because one of socially deficient, this theory is not adequate as an the original eggs is always left in the nest, cuckoo explanation for pet keeping. chicks come prewired to push it or any other nestling Yet another explanation for pet keeping draws from out of the nest. It seems that homicide is not just a the biophilia hypothesis, which we discussed human phenomenon! Below is a picture of a tiny previously. According to this hypothesis humans reed warbler trying to keep up with feeding its have an innate tendency to affiliate with life and life- nestling – a huge baby cuckoo. Compare the size of like objects and processes. Perhaps this tendency is the baby bird with the nest it is sitting on. difficult to fulfill in the modern era, which has been beneficial to do so now. Consistent with this theory, a time of rapid adaptation for humans. Large scientists have documented several benefits that numbers of people now live in cities, often in small pets can provide. households rather than extended family units, and One of the earliest documented benefits of pets was we are typically separated from each other and from in terms of cardiovascular health. An initial study the natural environment by walls and fences and found that pet owners were less likely to die in the obligations to family, friends and workplaces. Maybe 12 months following a heart attack than non-owners pets provide a “window” to the natural world, an (Friedmann et al., 1980). This result has since been outlet for owners who derive pleasure simply from replicated and it is well established that pet owners being in the presence of an animal. typically show lower levels of many risk factors for heart disease. They also use medical facilities less than non-owners and show a reduced incidence of obesity and better immune functioning. Pet owners are generally healthier, and this is estimated to save the community millions of dollars in health care costs. It was initially thought that the physical benefits of pet ownership might be due to dog owners getting more exercise. It is true that dog owners tend to get out and about more than non-owners, but we now know that people who own pets that do not need much exercise, like cats and rabbits or sedentary dogs, and people who own dogs but never exercise with them, enjoy similar health advantages. Probably those of us who do own dogs would enjoy even greater health benefits if we spent more time exercising them the old-fashioned way, without getting dog walkers and other modern technologies involved! And perhaps we could use dogs to encourage children to exercise more, perhaps by having walking groups staffed by volunteer parents with pet dogs operating at lunchtimes and after school. Scientists are only just starting to test out these ideas, but the important point is that all pets can improve our physical health, even if we don’t exercise with them. As with the other theories presented thus far, this one is likely to be partially correct, but it fails to fully We also now know that pets can be good for our account for our high rate of pet ownership. If social health. This can be a direct effect, whereby the reconnecting with nature was our main reason to own animal itself provides social support, or it can be an pets, we would choose more natural species, rather indirect effect, where the pet stimulates other than those we have genetically manufactured for our humans to provide extra support. Almost all pet own purposes. And why bother going to the trouble owners communicate verbally with their pet and and expense of owning a pet, when it is relatively easy most believe that this communication is reciprocal, and inexpensive to visit a zoo, plant a garden, or go with the pet communicating back. Many people talk walking in a park to get a ‘nature fix’? to their pets using a specific form of language called motherese, which is usually reserved for talking with The pets as ‘providing humans with many benefits’ young children. Over 80% of owners say that they never feel alone when they are with their pet and In recent years, a relatively new theoretical over 90% report feeling very close to the pet. Many, explanation for pet keeping has emerged. This especially women, say that their pet is more theory holds that people keep pets because, just as affectionate than their spouse. This type of direct it was beneficial to do so in the past, so it remains social support is important in these days of living by ourselves. Pets help their owners establish a shared At least some of the physical and social health routine and they buffer against loss and grief. They benefits described above reflect psychological can promote a sense of feeling needed, increase self- effects of pet ownership, which is typically worth, improve self-care and increase motivation to associated with reduced stress and anxiety. This can struggle against impairments, sometimes even be important in a therapeutic context, such as a acting to prevent depression or suicide. hospital or nursing home; many studies show that the presence of a companion animal can reduce fear and anxiety in such settings. Even in normal environments, however, pets are associated with a range of psychological health benefits. These range from simple things, such as pet owners laughing more than non-owners, through to more complex issues. People say that their pets provide loyalty and unconditional love. This can be of great value when you are feeling ugly, exhausted or have poor self- esteem. They also provide a shoulder to cry on and someone to share secrets with. Pets allow their owners to experience strong emotions like joy and grief, without worrying that they will be ridiculed or feel stupid. In adults and children, blood pressure is Pet owners also benefit indirectly by engaging more reduced while stroking a dog, especially if the dog with other people. Dogs are particularly good at is familiar, and there are increased levels of some being social enablers or social facilitators, helping to hormones and neurotransmitters associated with build bridges with neighbours and in entire feeling good. The dogs enjoy similar benefits, so it communities. Perhaps surprisingly, just the presence is a two-way street. of an animal in a photo makes a person appear more attractive to other people. This increased attractiveness is particularly important for the physically disabled, for the mentally ill, the aged, and for young mums living in a modern, isolating environment. Walking a dog also gets us out of the house, potentially reducing social isolation. An animal, particularly a dog, gives people something to talk about and can be a great ice breaker, so people will approach and talk to strangers more often. This makes it easier to make and keep friends. A study by the University of Western Australia’s School of Population Health found that over 50% of dog owners meet people in their neighbourhood because of their pet, and over 80% of dog owners While some of the psychological benefits associated talk to other people when out walking their dog. This with pets do not depend on the presence of a makes people feel safer and more at home in their special relationship between the animal and its community and has positive effects on the health and owner, this is not the case for other benefits, which economic viability of the society. seem to reflect the fact that pets are able to provide The social facilitation effect of companion dogs has genuine companionship. To understand this effect, been studied in hospital settings for the aged and it is important to differentiate between animals kept mentally ill. Residents feel less socially isolated when as pets and those kept as companions. Pets are an animal is present and are more willing to engage animals kept for no obvious practical or economic in therapy. There is also an effect called a widened purpose, for either a short-term or long-term period circle of warmth. Staff see the person interacting with of time. They may be playthings, adornments, status a dog and this has a humanising effect. They are then symbols, or objects of beauty but they are generally nicer to the residents, who come out of their shell replaceable and there is no special connection even when the dog isn’t present. between the animal and its owner. Companions are animals that share a ‘special’ relationship with their called Dogs Bite – But Balloons and Slippers Are owner. They are usually kept until death and the More Dangerous. This book compares dog bite emphasis is on the psychological relationship statistics with other forms of injury in the USA and between the owner and the animal, which is concludes that fatal dog bites are ‘fantastically rare’. perceived to be unique. Companion animals are Although 77 million dogs live in the USA, only 16 normally dogs and cats but may also be birds, fatal dog attacks are reported each year, compared horses, reptiles, or other species. Many people with 43,730 car accident deaths, 14,440 falls from argue that they are equivalent to family members – ladders, 3,334 drownings, 791 gunshots and 774 that we do not really own these animals at all, but falls from a bicycle. Even when dog bite deaths are merely act as their guardians. compared with other rare forms of death, dogs fare well. An average person is 5 times more likely to be killed by a lightning bolt, 4 times more likely to be killed in a forklift accident and twice as likely to win a lottery. For toddlers, widely acknowledged to be at greater risk of dog bite injury than other members of the population, the risks remain relatively miniscule. The average number of child (