Question: What do you think is the most significant change that companion animals – dogs in particular – bring to society and/or our individual lives?
Answer from Zennia Barahona
The most significant change that companion animals – dogs in particular – bring to society and/or our individual lives is unconditional love. There truly is no other relationship that we can even hope to have between ourselves and another human in which we will only always receive a pure un-selfish love. It’s said time and time again, but my dogs have never judged me when I’ve made mistakes, been lazy, have a bad hair day or am grouchy. They love me all the same and with the most pure enthusiasm. They always think I’m just the best thing ever and the feeling is mutual.
Living a little bit more by their example hopefully has a ripple effect and that makes it bigger than just me.
About Zennia
Zennia Barahona is owned by three Shiba Inus: Mox, Molly and Luna (the two former being NYCSR Alumni) and resides in Jersey City, NJ. She is one of the founding board members of NYC Shiba Rescue and is active in both Shiba rescue, education and awareness as well as her local community grassroots efforts. When not fighting animal welfare crime by night (and weekends) she’s an executive producer in the television and film industry by day in New York City. And yes, she has failed Fostering 101… twice.
I like dogs very much, but it perplexes me when I see people put forth this belief that their dogs love them unconditionally. I was an animal researcher, and did a lot of work on the psychology of dogs in particular. It seems obvious and elementary to me–not even as a researcher but just in interacting with my own dogs as companion animals–that they are pack animals, view me as ‘pack leader’ and provider of food and resources, and are thus subserviant to me by nature so that I don’t eject them from the pack.
I mean, any documentary on wolves will show lower members behaving toward the alpha in the exact same way my dogs behave toward me (ie, needy, cuddly, ‘puppy-ish’, affectionate, playful, submissive). It’s not because they love the alpha, who routinely brutalizes them, it’s because he’s the leader and the consequences of ejection from his favor are dire.
I just think it’s misinformed when people see this behavior and assume that their dogs are capable of unconditional love and are somehow better than humans, or as if it’s something we need to learn from them.
Hello “Happily Retired.” Thank you for joining the conversation.
I’d like to point out that both Eriz Zorn and Jon Katz are journalists, not behavioral psychologists. Their opinions about how dogs do or don’t feel are just that… opinions.
Personally, I believe my dogs (ok, one of my dogs – Snickers) truly loves me, but, honestly, it doesn’t matter in the context of this discussion about the benefits of companion animals to individuals and societies whether I’m right or wrong. If I perceive it as love, it has the same effect, whether a scientist may or may not label it as love. The changes that Snickers has brought to my life have made me a better person and a better parent. I’m a better communicator. I’ve become involved in my community and have made some incredible friends. I sleep better at night knowing he’s there to protect me. He reacts accordingly when I am happy or sad. He gets me out to exercise more often, encourages me to meet people, and his presence helps me manage stress when life is difficult. All of these benefits are real regardless of how you define love.
Semi-related, I’m not sure what Katz’s comment about pretending dogs are people and treating them as children has to do with whether or not dogs feel love. It’s as if he’s implying we have to anthropomorphize our pets to love them and to feel that they love us in return. I disagree. My dogs are dogs, not people and certainly not my children. But I do love them and they do love me.
“subservient ” is such a negative way to view a dog. In my opinion. I cannot adopt words like dominant or submissive to describe my relationship to my dogs – it downplays the unmistakable bonds of love. Again, my opinion.
I’m not arguing your opinion, happily retired, you are entitled to it.
My opinion is that my dogs are my equals, though I have thumbs and therefore have certain advantages over them in context, but in no way does that make them subservient and I cannot, and will not, view them as such.
I just had to make a very powerfully unfair decision to end the life of an elderly dog. Then more than ever did I realize how much unconditional love can change you, alter your perception of a companion, a friend. I believe in love, and I believe that my dogs provide me with something a lot like love, and they do so unconditionally. I have other love in my life, the love of human family members, the love of a husband and the love of friends. I feel love for my dogs the same as I do for family and dear friends. The emotion, the affection, the connection is anything but subservient.
Great answer, Zennia!!!
Also, Happily Retired, if you didn’t read yesterday’s answer to the same One Question, please do. Heather also writes about unconditional love and some of the ways that effects society as a whole through volunteer service with pets such as therapy visits. You’ll particularly enjoy her closing sentence -> https://jennaandsnickers.com/2010/11/unconditional-love-protection-heather-king/
Hi, Jenna. I enjoy your blog very much. 🙂
I listed that article about Katz because he writes a lot about the bond between humans and dog, and if ever there were a dog lover, he’d be it. And while he is a journalist, the science in his writings are quoted from interviews with animal scientists, psychologists, etc, and the opinions he espouses are theirs, not really his. He’s said, “I can’t imagine life without a dog. I don’t think dogs are substitutes for people, but I must confess I often find them more reliable.” I just wanted to put the opinions out there and wanted to use a dog lovers findings to do so. 🙂
I don’t doubt you truly love Snickers and that that feeling benefits you greatly, I’m just saying I believe that’s your response to dogs naturally. You’re very passionate about dogs and that’s great. However, that doesn’t mean dogs demonstrate unconditional love. That’s my quibble with the two posts from your one-question interview. Both state that dogs demonstrate unconditional love.
I have yet to meet a dog that doesn’t ‘love’ and cozy up to anyone who’ll offer food to them–isn’t that the very definition of conditional ‘love’? And what about the identical ‘owner-companion dog’ behavior lower, wild dogs exhibit to alphas in their packs? It’s all instinct. Jenna, you’ve mentioned instinct several times in your archives as explanations for dog behavior; why ignore the obvious instinctual opportunism that companion dogs exhibit–which has served them very well these thousands of years and remained virtually unchanged from their wolf pack days–and embrace this idea that it’s love and not millenia of behavior evolution?
I don’t think my dogs LOVE me at all, either. They respect me, want to spend time with me, but they don’t love me. At least, not by MY definition. Dogs learn to do what we expect of them, by bribe, by discipline or whatever. Not love, though.
CJ – You make a very important point. It’s really about how you define love. After all, “love” is pretty subjective, don’t you think?
HR – Couldn’t human “love” be attributed to instinct by the very same logic you mention above? Doesn’t a human male display “instinctual opportunism” when he mates with a woman who will then take care of him, provide sex, have his children, and maintain his home?! What makes that love any more than how Snickers feels about me? I’ve seen my dog plant himself between me and perceived danger with the intention of defending me to his death if necessary. You might call that protecting his food source, but I call it love just as easily as I would say a family member confronting a dangerous intruder to protect the rest of the family is love. (PS I’m glad you enjoy the blog. Thanks for saying so!)
Do Our Pets Really Love Us? by Dr. Nicholas Dodman addresses many of the points brought up in the comments today.