Читать книгу Dogs in the Leisure Experience - Neil Carr - Страница 10

Dogs have had and continue to have a complex variety of relations with ­humans. At one extreme there are people who harbour a deep-seated dislike, fear and even hatred of dogs; at the other extreme we see a strong bond of love and affection between people and dogs. Any examination of the nature of the position and experiences of dogs in the leisure environment needs to recognize the conflicting emotions that dogs can generate within the human population.

The relation between humans and dogs is complex and constantly evolving; it is also one that is specific to a given place and culture. Despite this, it is important to recognize that today dogs are more accepted as a ‘member of the family’ than at any time in history (Reichmann, 2000; Katz, 2003; Power, 2008). Or, as Rudy (2011: 29) said: ‘we have never in history been closer to our pets than we are today’. Indeed, Sanders (1999: 9) pointed out that most people who own a dog today identify it as a person or something with ‘person status’. Consequently, he stated that: ‘Studies show that somewhere between 70 and 99 percent of pet caretakers define their animals as members of the family, and from 30 to 83 percent consider the pet to be a “special” or “close” friend’ (p. 10). Indeed, reporting on a study in Australia, Power (2013) noted that 90% of Australians recognize their dogs as members of the family. Although not quite reaching the levels reported by Sanders, it is still important to note Herzog’s (2010: 9) claim that ‘Over half of dog owners think of their pets as family members.’ The result is that as Racher (2005: 11) stated: ‘dogs have become a major element of many families’. This view was echoed in an interview undertaken with one of the management team at the Hilton Hotel in Whistler in 2008 when he stated: ‘Time and time again you see families come up [to Whistler] and the pets [dogs] are their children.’ Such is the closeness between many people and their dogs that owners are said to form intimate and emotionally close and strong relations (not just bonds) with their animals and to even engage in conversations with them (Sanders, 1999). Indeed, it is not uncommon now to see it being claimed that owners place as much, or even more, value on their dogs and rely on them more for emotional support than they do on human members of their family (Sanders, 1999; Katz, 2003).

The move towards the positioning of the dog in the centre of the human family has arguably been an ongoing one throughout the history of the relationship between humans and dogs, but has become prevalent since the Industrial Revolution and the urbanization of formerly rural populations, and even more so in the last 100 years. Yet this trend can be traced back even further in its origin to the Renaissance era in Europe when the urbanized middle and upper classes began to keep pets; prime among which was the dog (Kalof, 2007). Indeed, Borsay (2006: 142) has stated: ‘what underpinned the increasingly sentimental attitude towards the animal kingdom was industrialization and urbanization, which drew more and more people away from direct contact with agriculture and the associated rearing, deployment, and killing of animals’. While there is clearly a long history associated with the pet dog in Europe it is important to note that Hare and Woods (2013) have identified that the pet dog existed in China in as early as the 1st century BC. As the quotation from Borsay suggests it is not just that humans have been positioning dogs as an ever more central component of the family, but that the meaning behind the dog has also been changing; shifting from an animal to be used by humans in the process of their work and even survival (a tool or object) to a pet. Indeed, Serpell and Paul (1994) noted the adoption of first the word ‘pet’ and more recently the term ‘companion animal’ as signs to show the changing nature of how we view animals such as the dog. These terms shift the emphasis away from the economic value of the domesticated animal and its overt use as a tool of work towards a recognition of the social and emotional value of the animal, and by the highlighting of these values draw such labelled animals closer to the human family. Yet these values have not always been recognized, leading to the suggestion by Serpell (in Herzog, 2010), among others, that the pet has no function and therefore is without value. This consigns the pet dog to the bottom of the heap where it is not only a mundane animal, but a valueless mundane animal.

Just becoming a pet does not, of course, mean that a dog ceases to be an object or tool. Indeed, as will be discussed in Chapter 4, many dogs have been and still are owned as pets, if not solely then certainly partially, for the displaying of the owners’ wealth and status. This trend, Power (2012) suggested, emerged with the growth of the middle class in western Europe in the 1800s and the growth in dog ownership among this population. The Council for Science and Society (1988: 4) saw this situation having continued into the contemporary era where: ‘Unusual and expensive breeds of dog or cat, for example, may be owned as much for reasons of prestige as for anything else.’ They further pointed out that: ‘Animals kept solely as status symbols are often admired and well looked after, but only as long as the image they project corresponds to the owner’s expectations.’ The construction of pet dogs as symbols of the status and wealth of their owners is something that ensures the continued positioning of the dog by humans as an object or tool. The Council for Science and Society also raised the issue of the pet dog as a play toy, hobby or recreational tool, identifying an emphasis on the dog as object in these instances. However, as part of bringing dogs into the house and out of the traditional working environment they have, thanks to humans, assumed more human characteristics (in a process that identifies all that can be wrong with anthropomorphism) and through this potentially negative minefield have emerged, at least partially, as a creature with rights: a sentient being.

The result, as Rice (1968: 210) noted, was that even by the 1960s in the USA and elsewhere, ‘many pets [especially dogs] are part of the family. Their status may be that of an amusing child, a pleasant companion, an understanding friend, or a loving soul-mate. They receive the attention and affection customarily given to people.’ Such a view was also noted by Mann (1975) and is supported by Joseph (2010) who saw animals functioning increasingly as companions, able to alleviate loneliness, make humans feel loved and loving, and provide a conduit through which social bonds between people may be established. In this way the companion dog, it is possible to suggest, is perceived not as an object, but as a subject (Council for Science and Society, 1988) – a sentient animal. Consequently, there is a ‘relationship’ between a companion dog and human owner, which contrasts with the dog as object, with whom a relationship cannot exist.

While acceptance of the dog as a member of the human family has its origins in North America and north-western Europe, there is evidence to suggest that it is becoming a global trend, with dogs being more commonly seen as family members in such diverse places as Australia and New Zealand, India, China and South-east Asia. This trend and its implications will be discussed throughout the book but particularly in Chapter 7, which is concerned with the dog as human cuisine.

The nature of the relation between dogs and people both influences and is influenced by how the sentience of dogs and hence their ‘rights’ are perceived. Questions of sentience and animal rights will be discussed later in this chapter as they colour the entirety of this book, how it is written and how it will doubtless be perceived by the reader. As we see dogs becoming ever more accepted as members of the human family we have witnessed an increasing discussion of the intimate, platonic bonds that can and do develop between dogs and their human family. These relationships are perceived and displayed as ones where ‘The warmth and depth of the affection a dog can display towards its owners and all members of the family, especially to children, is legendary’ (Reichmann, 2000: 353–354).

Why have we witnessed a growth in the number of dogs living as a member of a human family, often sleeping inside, on or near the humans’ bed; travelling in the family car; and going on holiday with the family? One of the most commonly cited reasons is the supposed affection that dogs display to their family members (Reichmann, 2000). This affection is claimed to be unconditional and honest in a way that is incomparable to that available from most human–human relationships (Reichmann, 2000). It is further suggested that in our post-modern society where people increasingly lead isolated lives, separated from their kin and alienated from their neighbours, dogs offer a source of by affection that is not available elsewhere (Katz, 2003). Such a view is supported by the New Zealand Companion Animal Council (2011), which stated that 53% of New Zealanders acquire a dog primarily for companionship.

Based on the recognition of the dog as a source of companionship and affection it has begun to be viewed as a means of increasing the mental health and well-being of people in general (Miklósi, 2007; Wood et al., 2007; Zilcha-Mano et al., 2012), and elderly (Norris et al., 1999) single people in particular. With specific reference to children, dogs have been identified as an aid to their healthy physical and psychological development (Endenburg and van Lith, 2011). The dog also offers the opportunity and drive to enhance the fitness of the owner through its need for exercise (Brown and Rhodes, 2006; Cutt et al., 2008; Yabroff et al., 2008; Oka and Shibata, 2009; Reeves et al., 2011). The benefits of dog ownership do not, according to Wood et al. (2007) and Messent (1983), accrue only to the pet owner. Rather, dogs have the potential to facilitate positive social interaction between owners and non-dog owners that benefits the wider society through the development of a sense of community. Such a claim is well known to most dog owners whose animals often act as social lubricants and initiators of conversations with other owners. Such benefits assume that all social interactions between dogs and their owners and others are positive, which, unfortunately, is not the case. Despite this, as long as the positive encounters outweigh the negative ones, then the presence of dogs in society can be argued to be positive for social cohesion. Furthermore, the dog may offer security (which is often more imaginary than real with pet dogs who are as likely to invite a stranger into the house as bark threateningly at one), which can be very important for those living by themselves (Gillespie et al., 1996). Overall, as Rogerson (1991) and Herzog (2010: 68) noted, we: ‘bring animals [and particularly dogs] into our lives because they make us feel ­happier, healthier, and more loved’. The reasons why we bring dogs as pets into our lives undermines the argument that a pet is without function or value; rather they are beyond economic valuing and are certainly not valueless to research either in their own right or in the context of their relations with humans. The result of all these reasons for bringing dogs into our lives is an increasingly close bond between dogs and humans that blurs the distinction between animals and humans and ensures dogs are seen ever more as a member of the family.

The idea that dogs help to ensure the mental and physical well-being of ­humans, while prominent today, is something that appears to have been in ­existence since at least the medieval era in Europe; then, royalty often kept dogs for the emotional outlet they offered when the humans were faced with the reality of the isolation with which their positions presented them (Kalof, 2007). This just goes to show how ideas, like fashion, come and go and that the current position of the dog is not necessarily the one it will be situated within in the future.

The term ‘pet’ has developed negative connotations of ownership in recent years, suggesting the animal is owned as an object for the benefit of the human and consequently its rights are not necessarily taken into consideration. As a result, we have seen the emergence of terms such as ‘companion animal’ and ‘pet guardian’. The notion that an animal can be the companion of a human suggests that both actors are in a relationship where if there is not equality there is at least recognition of the rights of both and as such both are empowered. In this sense the relation between dog and human may, in Goffman’s words, be seen as a ‘with’ (Sanders, 1999): a coming together of two sentient beings in a way that in its ideal is mutually beneficial. The problem, as Herzog (2010: 74) saw it is that many pets are not true companions and that really ‘The terms companion animal and pet guardian are linguistic illusions that enable us to pretend we do not own the animals we live with.’

That not all dogs are treated or viewed in the same way is as apparent today as it has been historically. The medieval royals of Europe who were keeping dogs as emotional confidantes were also keeping dogs for hunting and baiting. Today, we see farmers who keep dogs as tools of work and at the same time have a pet dog who is treated in much the same manner as a huge number of the urban dogs of North America and Western Europe. This inconsistency and how it is justified or explained away will be discussed later in the book.