I finished reading Adam Hine’s (2010) Duncan the Wonder Dog (Show One) today, and one of the things it does is not only to have animals to talk but actually to center the “values” of the story from the animal point of view. (I have a longer review of the book here; there are some spoilers.) In one long section, a human diary details various life problems and tangentially addresses things going on with one of the house pets, a dog named Bundle. As Bundle becomes ill, the house’s cat berates Bundle’s human “mom”, who works at a shelter for lost animals:
The poorest most pathetic humans live like gods compared to any animal. It doesn’t matter who you were with, they won’t get rounded up and burned in an oven if they walk the long way through somebody’s back yard! You wear clothes and Bundle wears a collar that you gave him to match your carpeting and all he wants is for you to be here. He’s dying and he just wants you to be here with him. Who cares about the fucking shelter! (315, emphasis in original)
The book in general goes a long way toward making unambiguous the terrible (or at best, ambiguous) plight of animals in our human culture, but I saw clearly how this attached to the issues of slavery (resegregation and mass incarceration) and adoption as well (as human trafficking).
In particular, the way that the status of house pets, adopted children, and modernized slaves intersect and diverge interests me. For example, the trafficking of pets and adopted children (both domestically and internationally) differs from how incarcerated slaves are trafficked (but not how former domestic and international slaves were trafficked). How pets and slaves were subjected to breeding regimens, while adopted children are not is another variation (though all three were subject to sexual predation). All three are subject to RAD reactions. And so on.
What are other interconnections and disconnections you find and/or have experienced about this triad?
I would argue that most animals especially pets have it better than most humans on the planet. It creeps me out to see things in the States like specialty pet stores, hotels and spas for dogs, etc. The amount of energy that goes into feeding captive animals is pretty obscene. In New York, I’ve seen people crying over dying pigeons in front of homeless people; I’ve seen people walking their dogs demand right of way from the down-and-out on the street.
Having said that, I remember when I started up a category of DAMN! at Mediarama called “Adoption Alternatives”. I would repost online ads and the like that advertised pets, suggesting that an animal adoption might go farther toward the “need” for someone to take care of something else. I quickly found out that the similarity in language between animal and human adoption was truly disturbing, and furthermore that the mentality behind both was absolutely the same.
This mentality has roots in a salvationist sentiment combined with a perception of someone or something weak and/or in need, that will be silent, obeying, obsequious, needy, and dependent. You reinforce this with trade, purchase, and “ownership papers”. You lord it over the newly bought object, and the reminder of his constant allegiance is demanded. The similarities between adoption and slavery are a given, since one came out of the other. The connection to subjugation of animals is new-ish.
I would throw out there as well that the conquest of nature (animal and plant kingdoms) and the conquest of peoples are rooted in similar frameworks, religious and political. Much has been written about this; it is a rich vein to expand on, for sure.
The New York Review of Books [ link ] has in a recent issue an article entitled “What Makes Dogs Dogs”. Some choice quotes that back up the basic premise of this post:
Subservient. Dominated. Domesticated. The allowance of entry into the world of bourgeois humans via adoption into the Master’s house.
From the great blog “Economics of Imperialism”, an entry entitled: “Cats, Dogs and People in the Imperialist World Economy” [link]:
Just some (pet) food for thought.