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:
Thanks for this, Eric. I'm surprised that Jill Abramson came to the conclusion that one should never sleep with dogs — or at least that she wouldn't — after talking with Temple Grandin, who is far from sentimental about animals and their role in our world. All she asks is that we respect them before we eat them. So you'd think if she has no problem with treating animals as part of the family, that would be pretty definitive.
When you think about it, the issue of dogs sleeping in beds is the antithesis of anthropomorphism. With children, there are a whole range of psychosexual issues to worry about. With dogs there's only the question of whether they snore or fart (more than your usual bed partners).
“With dogs there's only the question of whether they snore or fart (more than your usual bed partners).”
LOL! They also hog the bed and lick your knees under the covers. Mine does.
I'm a big Temple Grandin fan. I loved the HBO special about her. Being in NJ, where we have the highest numbers of autistic children in the nation, I applaud Grandin for her work on Autism and on animals.
I do treat my cats like a member of the family. He sleeps on the bed, and is a bit spoiled, but it's quite different from spoiling a child. I know. I have one of those too. Thanks for another great post.
I was first introduced to Temple Grandin while reading one of Monty Robert's books. I am so looking forward to seeing the movie about her. I also think that pet should be treated as family members by setting rules and boundaries, without that you just have a “spoiled brat”.
I'm not a spoiler, at least by my own definition. My dogs do sleep with me and they are allowed on the couch and I do consider them my family.
I don't dress my dogs up in frilly pink outfits or argyle socks, although living where I live it rains a lot in the winter and since both of my dogs are short haired, I do have raincoats for them to help keep them warm when it's wet outside.
I don't believe in strollers for dogs (they're not babies), unless the dog is unable to walk for his/herself. Dogs walk, that's what they do, and I feel that taking that away from them too just isn't right.
LOL Edie!!
Spoiled to one means well cared for to another. The arguments about dogs on beds, dogs doing everything you tell them the second you tell them, sound like vestiges of old thinking. Dogs on beds used to be conveyed as giving them leeway to be dominant. Phooey. As long as dogs have the boundaries that are important to their sense of well being, safety, and socially accepted norms of behavior (stop humping her leg!) I don't see the problem. Thanks Eric!
Loved the Homans article – going to have to read that a couple of times to take it all in. I like the concept of treating “dogs as full members of the family without spoiling them” – I'm not sure I've actually witnessed it all that often in real life. Like many other things in life, people make bringing up Barkley harder than it needs to be. I just love my dogs. I know what that means to me – what I will do, what I won't do – and I try not to worry about what other people think.
PS – Because if feel like there's a subtle poll in the comments – our dogs don't lie on the furniture, sleep on the bed, or get table food.
I don't think many people really understand what anthropomorphism is, let alone agree when they see it. I think historically it was just an excuse to abuse animals, because it was “bad science” to attribute any human attributes or – God forbid – “Feelings” to other animals. This was really based in the Judeo-Christian belief that humans were “above” animals (“just a little lower than the angels”), and it was sacrilege to elevate animals to our lofty heights. (For a long time the ruling white classes believed that other races did not have the same feelings or needs as the “superior” white people, either, so they felt completely justified in denying them the same human rights.) So much for the separation of “science” and “religion” – I think anthropmorphism is the backlash from those who STILL refuse to believe Darwin had it right.
However….there is, I believe, a “virtue” in treating all life with respect and in a way that best supports its natural inclinations (which is always debatable when humans try to justify their behaviour). If a person takes a fish to bed with him to cuddle, of course that is foolish – it is ignoring the fish's needs to meet the human's, and is ultimately destructive to the fish – i.e. truly anthropomorphic. Fish MAY have the same needs for comfort, touch, etc. – but a) is there evidence of this? and b) even if there is, treating them like humans is chauvinistic and patronizing. They deserve to be treated as what they are.
Likewise for dogs and cats. I believe dogs and cats ARE being abused if they are treated simply like pliant little furry people (I think children are abused if they are treated like pliant little adults, also) – these beings have fundamentally different needs, ideas, feelings of their own, and are not to be “toys” of grown up people. I see far too few “boundaries” and kind guidance being given both human kids and “fur kids” (I hate that term) – and I see the social consequences of this all the time. Other people don't like “spoiled” dogs, cats or kids – they are not well socialized and do not fare well as well-adjusted members of their own species. This does them no favours.
I think most of us who genuinely love our animals, as important parts of our families, DO spoil them in some ways – and abuse them, subtly – in others. But I am not be proud of this. I, personally, don't think animals need to sleep with us (unless we are living in the woods with them), and I think some separation is healthy (we don't sleep with all our other adult friends). People need to leave more room for dogs to be dogs – as autonomous adults, they have the need and capacity to make some good decisions for themselves, and to not be smothered by us, even though they love us too. (Left to their own devices, dogs and cats NEVER dress up in cute clothes, or do silly tricks like shake hands or play dead, I'm almost certain!)
I think there are more than “broad generalizations” behind exhortations by some to allow “no animals in bed” or whatever – and from what I know of Temple Grandin, I doubt she thinks “treating pets like kids” equates with the sentimental and sadly misguided treatment of kids and pets alike that is so rampant now. But – luckily, animals – and kids – are smarter than many adults, and they will possibly forgive their “parents” in the long run, and turn out OK in spite of them. But, I say – don't push your luck, and at least TRY not to spoil anybody!
I guess I should get my own blog, huh? This topic really pushed my buttons – sorry.
No apology required! The point of allowing comments is to encourage discussion.
There actually is evidence that dogs will seek out contact with the species they are socialized to as puppies. (Scott and Fuller 1965 comes to mind. There was something in the '80s but I'm too tired to root around for it right now.)
There are situations, such as resource guarding issues and some rare dominance aggression (yes, it does exist) where I think that allowing dogs into situations like sharing a bed is a bad idea. I was referring to lacking a specific situation like this when I referred to “broad generalizations.”
No apology required! The point of allowing comments is to encourage discussion.
There actually is evidence that dogs will seek out contact with the species they are socialized to as puppies. (Scott and Fuller 1965 comes to mind. There was something in the '80s but I'm too tired to root around for it right now.)
There are situations, such as resource guarding issues and some rare dominance aggression (yes, it does exist) where I think that allowing dogs into situations like sharing a bed is a bad idea. I was referring to lacking a specific situation like this when I referred to “broad generalizations.”