I think our feelings toward our pets somehow invoke the brain modules we use in relating to our babies. We have bred dogs and cats to look more baby-like and to act more like puppies and kittens. We baby talk them. We forgive them their mistakes, especially their messes. And we get from them some of the reward that evolution has primed us to get from raising offspring.
The argument advanced by this psychologist, Suzanne Phillips, is that we should treat our spouses more like we treat our pets. I regard this as a bizarre contention, because our whole relationship with pets, and babies, is based on a gigantic inequality. I do agree that greeting each other every time we come home, as dogs insist on being greeted, is probably a good thing for couples to practice, and I think people should in general practice being more forgiving and less irritable toward each other. Beyond that, the notion is hooey. As one commenter put it:
The difference is that pets have no real power to hurt us. They can frustrate us, and they can certainly damage our property. But for the most part, we don’t depend on pets for anything. They can’t hurt our feelings. The stakes between people are much higher. The needs are much more profound. Although we should all treat our spouses better, this comparison is misleading.I am not really sure that the needs we want pets (or babies) to fill are "less profound," since pet keeping is more universal among humans than marriage. But they are certainly very different.
Who's this "we" and "everybody"? (As in "we are nicer to our pets than we are to each other.") I was pretty flabbergasted by this article.
ReplyDeleteWell, yes, pet abuse and abandonment are pretty common, and we have gotten all of our pets from shelters. But I encounter the notion that love from pets is greater and more pure than human love all the time. What is the ration of bumper stickers praising dogs to bumper stickers praising spouses?
ReplyDeleteWhen did anyone ever say that dogs need to be more like people, because human love is more constant and pure? I, for one, have never encountered this notion, yet I encounter the opposite at least once a week.
Perhaps, but I for one don't experience the difference between my pet and my spouse that you describe, and I can't sincerely report that I notice it in my friends.
ReplyDeletePerhaps there is an element of "the lady doth protest too much" in all that stuff about the love of dogs.
I note that this article is the most viewed and emailed on the NY Times today.
ReplyDeleteI have always hated the idea that dogs provide "unconditional love," and that this is somehow their primary role in life. I think what most people probably mean is that the relationship between people and dogs is a simpler kind of love, one that isn't predicated on judgment of our worth in other respects - for example, my dogs don't care what I wear, where (or even if) I work, what kind of car I drive, how much money I make, etc. They don't hang on to resentment or ask very much of me. They take me as I am and are always happy to do whatever I want to do. I take care of their basic needs and teach them some rules and games and we all hang out together. It's not complicated - and it's easy to see why this kind of relationship might be desirable. It's also pretty obvious that this kind of relationship is practically impossible to maintain with a spouse.
ReplyDeleteI also hate the idea of dogs as a "baby replacement." Yes, they're cute and dependent, to some extent, but dogs aren't really very good at replacing human babies. They cuddle and don't seem to mind baby-talk, but they tend to develop weird issues if the baby treatment goes too far.
Dogs do well at a variety of things that babies don't, mostly having to do with work and companionship - I really like having a jogging partner, for example, and babies are notoriously bad joggers.
I agree that this article is pretty bizarre - as is the implication that we should struggle to be more doglike in our relationships with spouses and significant others - the author doesn't seem to understand very much about dogs. Or people.