Some sociologists have examined the relationship between people and their pets. Indeed, there is even an American Sociological Association section titled “Animals and Society” (read their rationale here). Here are the thoughts of two sociologists on this dynamic between pets and their owners:
Sociologist Elizabeth Terrien discovered in a study of dog owners that people from rural backgrounds view dogs more as guardians that should be kept outside. More affluent people tend to see their pets more as children and describe them in terms such as “child,” “companion” or “partner in crime.”
Terrien found that those with Latino backgrounds were more likely to use the term “protector” or “toy” to describe their pet’s role.
Carey also refers to sociologist David Blouin’s three main categories of pet owners:
“Dominionists,” who view pets as useful but replaceable helpers. Many of the people in this category in Blouin’s study were immigrants from rural areas.
“Humanists,” who pamper their pet much like a human child, let their pets sleep in their beds or leave money in their will.
“Protectionists,” who have strong opinions about how animals should be treated and decide what they think is “best” for an animal (untying a dog tethered to a tree, for instance, or determining when a dog should be put down).
I wonder if we could map these ideas on top of Annette Lareau’s ideas about class and parenting styles in Unequal Childhoods. Lareau suggests that lower-class parents practice the accomplishment of natural growth, a more independent view of children and not encouraging children to challenge external authorities, where middle- and upper-class parents practice concerted cultivation where children are encouraged to speak up and parents give children the activities and cultural tools to get ahead. These categories seem to line up with the idea of these two sociologists: pets are more replaceable and functional for lower-class people (“dominionists”) while pets take are much closer to family members in more wealthy families (“humanists” and “protectionists”).
I also wonder if there is work comparing the treatment of children in families to treatment of pets. What might the impact of this be on children?
Additionally, it sounds like there could be some value judgment regarding which of the three approaches is most appropriate. How do “humanists” and “protectionists” view “dominionists”?