Articles

Pet Love: An Unhealthy Case of Mistaken Identity

Whereas no one can possibly deny that we are exploiting animals for food, clothing, or scientific research, it is much less obvious in the case of pets. One of the main reasons for the ambiguity is that animals themselves seek and appreciate our company. For many people, this seemingly natural attraction is the proof that animals and humans have a noble, natural inclination to love each other. But the case is not so simple.

What we are mistaking for a voluntary attraction of animals to humans can be explained by the imprint phenomenon. This vital biological process, discovered by Konrad Lorenz, is responsible for the fact that animals, including humans, learn early to identify with members of their own species. However, if members of another species raise the newborn animals, they will readily identify with that species. Unfortunately, this most amazing, built-in “magnet” can be responsible for much misunderstanding and suffering.

In order to learn how to function and survive in his specific environment, it is vital for the newborn to quickly bond with his mother. Her voice, her smell, her silhouette are recorded in his memory as if on photographic film. He is almost a part of her, and thus fully identifies with her. The reassuring presence of the mother allows him to explore and learn the laws of the land. During this period of socialization, he learns to recognize the members of his own species, their sex, the food he needs to eat in order to survive, and various other items of critical importance. In case of danger, he will always turn to his mother for security and protection. The lost of contact, or any attempt to separate them, will provoke in both of them serious distress and anxiety in the form of excessive vocalization, hyperactivity, and if the separation is prolonged, a loss of sleep and appetite. In birds, this period of attachment begins with hatching and is very short; in cats and dogs, it is well underway five weeks after birth; in primates like humans it lasts normally around twelve years. It is thanks to this biological function that we are able to domesticate animals and nurture intimate relationships with them. As long as we integrate ourselves into young animals’ lives before the imprint period ends, we can be assured they will identify with us. A fourteen-week old puppy that has never been in contact with man will fear his presence. Every species has a window of vulnerability to cases of mistaken identity.

Under normal conditions, attachment is always followed by detachment, a period that allows the youngster to reach maturity and assume his position in his social group. Detachment occurs as the mother gradually distances herself and stops responding to the constant solicitations of her young. The strong mother-newborn bond is replaced by a social relationship, and the imprint period phases out into autonomy. When a pet is adopted at a critical age within the imprint period, he transfers upon his new master the attachment he felt to his mother. Great -- that’s what we want, right? Well, it is not as natural or as harmless as it seems. The Master becomes the animal’s surrogate mother, but this case of usurped identity is never followed by detachment like it normally should be. At an age when the natural mother would be discouraging the youngster’s emotional dependence, the master is encouraging it. In this way, pets never reach any level of emotional maturity. The result is that all pets are infantile, to varying degrees.

The persistence of this carefully-nurtured dependence will eventually trigger a permanent state of anxiety. Such dependence leads to various psychological and psychosomatic problems. All species are affected. Gregarious animals like dogs and certain birds like those of the parrot family (budgies, cockatiels, large parrots) are especially prone but so are cats, reptiles and even fish. All those that spend time in our company, that share our beds, our meals, that we constantly pet or talk to affectionately, that we give treats to, are unconsciously conditioned to become affection junkies. The anxiety they feel following an absence or a lack of attention is equal to what a newborn feels when he is separated from his mother. Their happiness being dependent upon this attention, they try their best, in whatever ways possible, to maximize it. For instance, some pets begin scratching or licking themselves out of nervousness; then they notice that doing so attracts Master’s attention, who by responding will unconsciously perpetuate this behavior to the point where medical intervention is necessary. For this reason, seasonal allergies will often last well beyond the normal time. Dogs will fake a sore paw or cough to provoke sympathy and an interaction. Some pets will constantly ask for the door, make objects fall, vocalize continually. Some will soil their home in order to get a punishment that will paradoxically stimulate some well-being. In short, they will take anything but being ignored. Like a drug addict whose drug has been taken away, the dependent animal must go “cold turkey” in the absence of his master. This will often result in strange behaviors. It is common for dogs left alone to literally go crazy, destroying and soiling their environment. Many dogs howl or bark all day long while Master is gone. Note the similarity between this and a young puppy separated from his mother: the howling dog is trying to call his surrogate mother back to his side. Cats will urinate on their Master’s clothes or bed. Parrots will start screaming and pulling out their feathers, in some cases, to the bone. Some will start drinking excessively; others will become bulimic or chronic lickers. A few will become chronic masturbators. All these behaviors are exaggerated manifestations of the natural functions of eating, drinking, preening, walking, and reproducing. Before long, these “perversions” become deeply engrained habits that get out of control, being triggered even in non-threatening situations. In short, by constantly soliciting the affection of a pet with various rewards and “brownie” points, we are destroying his emotional thermostat. Well-trained and well-behaved animals, the more docile kind, will just internalize this anxiety into various psychosomatic diseases. For example, anxiety in cats will often cause interstitial cystitis, a chronic bladder problem often confused with a urinary infection or stones. Chronic vomiting and diarrhea, itching, colitis, and cancers are other possible psychosomatic diseases.

This explains why the long-term results of behavior modification and animal psychotherapy, the new gold mine of the pet industry, are so poor. The causes of most psychological problems are related to domestication and the carefully-nurtured dependence that comes with being a pet. Understandingly, so there is no intention to cure the real problem: people get a dog or cat for company, and when they come home from work, they want to be greeted by an affectionate, docile, and cuddly pet – why else would they bother? There is no point in having a pet that cannot be controlled or that will not submit to Master’s every whim. The goal of behavior modification, then, is rather to help the psychologically disturbed patient regain some “sanity” so that he can function “normally” in his quite abnormal world. In short, the animal psychiatrist is not so concerned with curing the patient as with helping him cope in ways that are better for the owners. He will also try to modify the behavior of the Masters, who usually lose interest when they learn it requires work on their part. Frustrated and disappointed by poor long-term results, the “psychiatrists” will often rely on psychotropic drugs like Prozac or valium to smother the fever of a disease caused by the inherent flaws and contradictions of this unhealthy bond. Many Masters will seek the help of a muscled dog trainer, which will just make things worst in most cases. Tough love is not the way. After patience has run out, many will get rid of their troubled pets, who will bounce around from one owner to the next, eventually to be destroyed.

***

What has just been briefly described is vitally important to understanding the real meaning of the human-pet bond. What is taken for a loving and noble relationship that demonstrates the best in humanity -- what is mistaken for a healthy and productive relationship, which it is energetically promoted as being by the pet industry and society in general – is nothing more than infantilism, emotional dependence, and a reciprocal servitude – after all, in order to enjoy and seek this kind of unhealthy relationship, you have to be quite infantile and dependent yourself. The extent of this inclination will vary considerably according to the importance the object of your “love” has in your emotional life. In other words, the more dependant and infantile you are, the more empty and lonely you feel; the more identified you are to the object of your affection, the more you “love” and become attached. An anticipated separation will often lead, like for the animals described above, to various expressions of anxiety. Sometimes, the loss of a pet will truly feel like an amputation. Veterinarians are frequent witnesses of dramatic shows of bereavement.

Perhaps you feel out-of-control in other aspects of your life, and you are unconsciously fulfilled by the power you have in your relationship with your pet. You do not have to be a domineering, aggressive type in order to find pleasure in the control of a weaker being. “Love is not what makes the world go around. There remains affection. […] Affection mitigates domination, making it softer and more acceptable, but affection itself is possible only in relationships of inequality. It is the warm and superior feeling one has toward things that one can care for and patronize. The word care so exudes humaneness that we tend to forget its almost inevitable tainting by patronage and condescension,” writes Yale professor Yi-Fu Tuan in his book Dominance and Affection: the Making of Pets.

Considering the popularity of pets in rich, industrialized nations, it is tempting to conclude that relationships of infantilism, emotional dependence, and domination are the norm in our society. If it is the case, the human-pet bond is far from being healthy. On the contrary, it encourages and propagates some serious flaws in our behavior.

Whatever the case may be, this bond, this case of mistaken identity and abuse of power, is the first link of a subtly perverse chain of exploitation; subtle because it is not obvious, and perverse because it operates under the covert of good intentions and sentiments. Its sophisticated hypocrisy makes it sicker than other, more flagrant forms of animal abuse.