How Do Different Countries Or Cultures Define Companion Animals?

If the number of beautiful animal memes on the cyberspace is a fair benchmark, and so the human dear of pets is a powerful and global miracle. For many pet owners, their furry (or scaly) domestic companions transcend any elementary categorization of non-human animal. Indeed, research shows that information technology is a growing global trend for pet owners to consider their animals to exist full members of their families; to dote upon them as they would children or romantic partners, both emotionally and financially; and to thereby develop strong bonds of dependency, love, and support.

Greyness and Young (2011) conducted a wide cantankerous-cultural study of human–pet dynamics effectually the world utilizing the Probability Sample Files, a stratified random sample of 60 culturally, linguistically, and geographically diverse societies represented in eHRAF World Cultures. Their study revealed that "dogs, birds, and cats were the well-nigh mutual pets, followed by horses, other hoofed mammals such equally h2o buffalo, rodents, nonhuman primates, and pigs" (ibid. 23). The authors suggest various reasons that peoples around the earth continue pets, including rearing the animals for nutrient, grooming them for assistance with hunting or labor needs, or keeping them as playful companions for children. Attitudes and sentiments towards the domesticated animals vary, with many societies attaching spiritual meaning to their birds, cats, or dogs that "illustrate the ways in which pets may be woven into the broader belief organization of a society" (ibid. 26).

Regardless of the reasons for domestication, the emotional connexion betwixt pets and their owners is worthy of cross-cultural attending. For example, it has been discovered that dogs are able to read emotional cues from the faces of their owners and to respond accordingly. Other contempo studies have shown that people tend to take more pity for animals who are suffering than for adult humans in similar circumstances, treating the hurt dogs akin to helpless infants who need protection. Based on global data, researchers in this telling social experiment concluded that, past and large, subjects "did not view their dogs as animals, but rather as 'fur babies' or family members alongside human children".

This post will explore the following question: what is the source of this capacity for our dear of pets, and does it vary cross-culturally?

Archaeological and ethnographic show

Every bit to the origins of human-pet relationships, anthropologists suggest that our propensity for keeping pets, equally well every bit our finely honed empathy for their emotional country, stems from the procedure of animal domestication in early on homo history, beginning with dogs and continuing to horses, sheep, goats, and others:

In each example, humans had to acquire to put themselves in the minds of these creatures in lodge to get them to do our bidding. In this fashion our senses of empathy and understanding, both with animals and with members of own species, were enhanced. Our special relationship with animals is revealed today through our desire to have pets (McKie 2011).

According to paleoanthropologist Pat Shipman of Pennsylvania Country University,

Humans are the only species on Earth to have 1-to-one relationships with a member of another species … No other creature would waste product resources [in this fashion]. Only nosotros do, and that is considering nosotros have evolved such close ties with specific animals over the millennia and because we are adjusted to empathise with other creatures. It is a unique homo attribute. We go and so much from animals, much more than than we appreciate (ibid.)

Evidence of ancient burials from eHRAF Archaeology supports recognition of a longstanding bond between humans and animals far back into prehistory. For example, in ancient Egypt (5000-2000 BCE), Rice finds that, "amongst the graves at Helwan are examples of the burials of dogs and donkeys; as these practice not seem to exist the discipline of cult or religious observance, it may exist that they were family pets, since the Egyptians always kept animals about them, equally members of their households" (1990: 131). Similarly, on the other side of the globe, the purposeful interment of animals in prehistoric settlements is known throughout the American Southwest and northern Mexico. According to Woosley and McIntyre, at the Current of air Mountain site in New United mexican states dating back to 2000-600 BP, the animals cached included dogs, bears, turkey, golden eagles, hawks, mourning doves, and scarlet macaws (1996: 281). They ponder the reasons for these burials:

The underlying motivations compelling prehistoric peoples to inter certain animals remain enigmatic, simply the archaeological context and associated artifacts of such burials, together with nineteenth and twentieth century ethnographic accounts and descriptive historical documents, provide some clues that the practice, at least in role, was related to ritual. It is every bit probable, however, that certain beast burials denote pets given special treatment by their owners (ibid. 281; emphasis added).

With such a long history connecting humans and domesticated animals, does the same special human relationship be everywhere today?

Is fondness for pets a cultural universal?

While the keeping of domestic pets appears to exist overwhelmingly mutual, what makes an animal a suitable pet – and i worthy of great adoration and pampering by their human owners – can vary across cultures. Are some pets more beloved than others? Allow's explore some ethnographic accounts of love for animals from eHRAF World Cultures to see if unconditional devotion to 1'due south pets is truly a cultural universal.

Edmund Leach's seminal work, "Animate being Categories and Verbal Corruption" (1964), presents the homo relationship to animals in terms of social distance. Attitudes towards different animals reflect our familiarity with them, so that the nigh familiar or "closest" to ourselves are subject to ritual provisions or prohibitions because they are considered "taboo". They are as well most worthy of human-similar intendance and devotion. This is why people generally avoid eating the animals that they might likewise keep in their homes equally pets. Conversely, those creatures physically or symbolically more distant from the self – i.e. animals in a field further away from the home – can exist seen as suitable nutrient; and those yet more "wild" are likewise afar for even human consumption (Leach 1964: 52). Does this model of human being-creature relations band true around the world?

Dentan's (1988: 329) description of Semai dietary restrictions in Malaysia gives insight into the categorization of animals equally either loveable or edible:

On the ane hand, there are tame animals such every bit dogs, cats and monkeys and, in the lowlands, semi-tame birds. The association the Semai have with these animals is under human control or, in the example of the semi-tame birds, not very intimate. These animals are "not eatable," the Semai say, because "we love them." On the other manus, there are wild but synoecious animals like business firm rats, cockroaches and rice weevils. […] These animals are "not eatable," the Semai say, because they are "dingy" or "evil spirits." The thought of eating them is disgusting.

The Semai example aptly illustrates Leach's proposition regarding how humans categorize animals inside the natural world and construct a model of social distance which aids in our understanding of human-animal relationships.

Fur Babies

The dynamic of intimacy in the man relationship to animals recurs in the ethnographic literature. The closeness of human-creature relationships is evident around the globe with instances of honey species being cared for as fondly and tenderly as human babies.

For instance, the Amazonian Tukano people of South America enjoy the companionship of domesticated animals in their homes: "They have monkeys, birds, dogs, etc. They love and accept care of these animals as if they were their own children, and to feed them when they are small, the native kickoff chews the nutrient before giving it to the brute to eat" (Fulop and Bravo 1954: four). Additionally, while each home keeps chickens, they are reserved for bartering simply. Neither the birds nor the eggs brand upwardly part of the local diet, which sources its protein from worms and ants instead (ibid.). In keeping with Leach'southward model, the latter are edible because they are not lovable.

On the Pacific Isle of Yap in Micronesia, an even closer parent-kid relationship between human being and animal is false in the case of piglets:

When a little pig is simply a few days old, the Yap woman usually takes it away from its mother, who is rarely able to nurse it, and cherishes and protects it herself with a tenderness and solicitude bordering on the love given to a child. She does not shrink from nursing it if necessary. The "infant" soon becomes accustomed to its loving nurse and follows her every footstep (Salesius 1906:148).

So common is the adoration of these pet pigs that it is not unusual to meet "a row of Yap women walking forth in single file, some of whom carry their tired 'babies' in their artillery, while their own offspring hang on their backs, and others have their frisky, jolly piffling lap-hog running forth beside them, grunting and hopping in youthful exuberance" (ibid. 148-nine).

Interestingly, pigs are non the just pets that are sometimes nursed by human being women instead of their own mothers. Dogs are i of the well-nigh cherished animals around the world, and information technology is non uncommon for puppies to be raised alongside man babies, with the same attending and devotion.

Cipriani and Cox (1966: 21) comment on the passionate dear for dogs constitute among the Onge people of the Andaman Islands: "Having once realized the usefulness of dogs, first imported into the islands some thirty years ago, the Onges now pet them similar little girls with their dolls, and the Onge women will suckle the family unit puppies quite naturally with their own children". The writer hastens to add that once a dog passes abroad, "the other side of the Onge nature comes to the fore and the carcass is thrown into the forest – there is no looking back". In this case, the adopted fur babies are still distanced from true family, despite being lovingly nurtured throughout their lives.

Another business relationship of a selfless love of dogs comes from Australia, where the canis familiaris "is the aboriginal'southward abiding companion" among the Aranda hunter-gatherers:

The animals are kept by both human being and adult female–in a single wurley i might count as many every bit fifteen dogs living with the man occupants. … The natives have the dogs about them merely for the love they bear towards them; it is on business relationship of the unreasonable amount of petting and pampering, received at the hands of their masters, that the dogs become so thoroughly useless. … They are so well looked afterward, and regularly steal and then much from the full general supplies of the camp, that they grow fat and lazy. When a dog seems to be off color, or has been accidently injure, information technology is nursed similar a sick child; it is placed past the fireside, upon the best carpeting available, and covered with other rags, the natives themselves going without whatever covering. One might occasionally find a gin going so far equally to even suckle a pup at her breast (Basedow 1925: 118-119).

While nursing a puppy may be a stretch for many human mothers, the recurring tales of these pampered pooches are not dissimilar from the primped and preened domestic furry friends that many of us know and love to spoil with affection.

A concluding ethnographic example of human-brute relationships comes from the Siberian Yakut love of horses, an beast they concur with the highest of esteem:

The Yakut dear horses passionately; if their horses have been taken away they mourn for them, which is noticeable in songs and legends of the far north; their optics always rest with delight on the beloved forms of horses, and their tongues gladly and solemnly sing their praises. I have never seen a Yakut scold a horse. Horses are as smart as people: one cannot insult them. Just see how they walk through the meadows; they never trample on something uselessly, the mode cows do; they never spoil ricks of hay; they respect human's labor! […] The equus caballus is an animal with tender feelings: it knows how to evaluate good and evil! (Sieroszewski 1993: 478)

Yakut lodge would not be the same without horses. The following video illustrates the depth of this cultural significance in Yakut life also equally the centrality of their undying love and respect for their horses:

Challenging Universals

While a stiff proclivity for the unconditional love of animals is obvious across cultures, in that location are some cases where a close relationship with sure animals, or the ownership of pets in general, is non desired. Some cultures may have ritual or superstitious reasons for fearing or disliking the idea of assuasive an creature close to their homes or families. For example, In Iran, dogs are seen as besides polluted to proceed in the Muslim dwelling:

… [Muslims] regard dogs as unclean, and as a rule hunting dogs and sheep dogs are the only ones that are regarded equally beneficial. [If] dogs are immune in the business firm they should be kept in a room apart from where the family lives. On account of their "bad jiff" they should not be allowed almost where people eat. […] It is despicable (makrú) to go on a dog in the house, and anyone who does and then will accept his store of merit diminished by the value of one pilgrimage (Donaldson 1938: 159).

In addition, they are broadly feared as prognosticators of evil in Iranian folklore:

When dogs bark and donkeys bray it is a sign that devils are away, for dogs meet and hear things which are denied to human senses, and at such times people should flee to God for protection. The howl of a dog is the sign of an convulsion, or pestilence, or the expiry of someone virtually related, for dogs are believed to be able to distinguish the Affections of Death (ibid.).

Lack of cleanliness and potential spiritual danger are just two cultural reasons why people may avoid domestic pets altogether. Another example from Iran establish in eHRAF Globe Cultures draws a stark contrast between local village life in Islamic republic of iran and the way pets are treated in the U.s.a.. Among the Lur people, Friedl argues,

The idea of keeping pets for company is amazing, revolting, or hilarious for people in Deh Koh. In regime propaganda, with which people in Deh Koh agree in this case, pet cemeteries and coin spent on food for dogs in the United states of america are much-cited signs of moral depravity of Westerners, who put the welfare of mere cats and dogs to a higher place the welfare of other, hungry, people. "In America, fathers honey their dogs more than than their children," a xv-yr-sometime girl told me earnestly. The absence of pets in Deh Koh thus makes local people improve people than Westerners in their optics. A few cases of older children being fond of a item cat, or a young shepherd favoring a dog, or children wanting to pet a lamb, are known in every house but are not elaborated into patterns, and ignored as "childish." Minoo, viii, was unconsolable [sic] afterward her uncle inadvertedly [sic] squished her pet kitten in the barn door. "Ah, children!" said her grandmother, irritated by the ruckus. "Cry for a cat!" Information technology was a strange story in the neighborhood (1997: 259; emphasis added).

This clear example of an open disdain for pampered pets returns us to the study cited above wherein a majority of (Western) respondents chose to care for a wounded dog with greater compassion than an adult human in similar circumstances. Does such a moral opinion bear witness a predominantly Western bias considering of how much Westerners have been conditioned to dote upon their furry companions? Do nosotros love our pets too much and our boyfriend humans not enough?

Go along Excavation

To continue this study and unravel new threads for your own research on the unconditional love of pets, use Advanced Search in eHRAF World Cultures or eHRAF Archaeology. Add OCM identifier 231 – Domesticated Animals to the Subjects box in order to search for ethnographic or archaeological documents containing mentions of pets beyond over 400 cultures or traditions. Add the keyword "dearest" to detect cases of beast amore, equally shown beneath:

Not however an eHRAF member? Free trials are available for academic institutions or individuals. Please contact us at hraf@yale.edu for more information.

References

Basedow, Herbert. 1925. "Australian Aboriginal." Adelaide: F. Westward. Preece and sons. https://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=oi08-007.

Cipriani, Lidio, and D. Tayler Cox. 1966. "Andaman Islanders." New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc. https://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=az02-011.

Dentan, Robert Knox. 1988. "Some Senoi Semai Dietary Restrictions: A Study Of Food Behavior In A Malay Hill Tribe." Ann Arbor, Mich.: Academy Microfilms International. https://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=an06-007.

Friedl, Erika. 1997. "Children Of Deh Koh: Young Life In An Iranian Village." Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press. https://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=ma12-007.

Fulop, Marcos, and Mary Louise Bravo. 1954. "Aspects Of Tucano Civilisation: Cosmogony." Revista Colombiana De Antropología 3: HRAF MS: one–54 , plates [original: 97–137 , plates]. https://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=sq19-003.

Leach, E. 1964. Animal Categories and Exact Corruption. In EH Lenneberg ed. New Directions in The Study of Language, Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 28-63.

Gray, Peter B., and Sharon K. Immature. 2010. "Homo-Pet Dynamics in Cross-Cultural Perspective." Anthrozoos 24: 17–30.

McKie, R. 2011. "Love of animals led to language and human'southward domination of World". The Guardian. Online: https://www.theguardian.com/scientific discipline/2011/oct/02/anthropology-pat-shipman-animals-language Accessed: ii/3/2020

Rice, Michael. 1990. "Egypt'South Making: The Origins Of Ancient Egypt 5000-2000 Bc." London: Routledge. https://ehrafarchaeology.yale.edu/document?id=mr55-009.

Salesius, Begetter. 1906. "Carolines Island Yap." Berlin: Wilhelm Süsserot. https://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=or22-002.

Sieroszewski, Wacław. 1993. "Yakut: An Experiment In Ethnographic Research." Moskva: Assotsiatsiia "Rossiiskaia polit. entsiklopediia." https://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=rv02-001.

Woosley, Anne I., and Allan J. McIntyre. 1996. "Mimbres Mogollon Archaeology: Charles C. Di Peso'S Excavations At Current of air Mount." Amerind Foundation, Inc. Archeology Series. Dragoon, Ariz.: Amerind Foundation ; University of New Mexico Press. https://ehrafarchaeology.yale.edu/document?id=nt85-027.

Paradigm credits:

Cover photo (puppy)

Source: https://hraf.yale.edu/unconditional-love-is-devotion-to-pets-a-cultural-universal/

Posted by: simpsonderignatim.blogspot.com

Share this post