
Jordan, retired service dog.
Anthropomorphism can be a “bad word.” It is often used as a perjorative to indicate that someone doesn’t fully understand dog behavior.
I’ve used the word that way myself, as recently as this past weekend in the comments section of a post on this site. I feel that Cesar Millan‘s description of “dominance” is anthropomorphic — that he puts very human thoughts into dog’s heads, like “taking over” when people are not signaling to the dog that they are “in charge.”
But, as I discussed a while back on Dog Star Daily, is anthropomorphism always bad?
To listen to John Homans in New York Magazine, the answer seems to be yes. In his well-researched and very informative article in the February 1 edition of New York he issues the familiar complaint about dogs being pampered and treated as children. I’m a little tired of this argument and the subtext that dog’s treated like children are always spoiled and over-indulged. Seriously…check out how spoiled some children are and then get back to me. (The article covers a lot more territory and is definitely worth a read.)
The latest Puppy Diaries picks up on this argument. Ms. Abramson discusses meeting Temple Grandin, at the premiere of her biopic. Grandin agrees with much of what Homan says, but does say that it’s OK to treat dogs like children. She seems to indicate that while dogs have specific needs and that keeping them cooped up in apartments can cause issues, that if these needs are taken care of, it’s still OK to treat them like family members. Ms. Abramson ultimately decides that Scout “is NEVER going to sleep with us” presumably out of fear that it will “spoil” Scout.
I find this attitude unfortunate. Like Grandin, I think it’s possible to treat our dogs as “full” members of the family without “spoiling” them, and reflexively recoil from grand pronouncements like “no dogs in bed” or “no dogs on the furniture” when there’s nothing more than broad generalizations behind them.
Photo credit:
Interview at Dog Obedience Training Online
Tweet