Anthropological Perspective To Human-Animal Relations Expert Answer
Introduction
Human and animals have always lived in a closed proximity in the history of universe. These non-human species have made an integral contribution to the human lives through a diverse range of tasks including labor, recreation, hunting and being companions and enemies. Despite having linguistic barriers, these animals have developed strong connections with the human race and therefore have taken a significant position in the societal framework. Hence, anthropologists have shown utter interest in this discipline by analyzing this phenomenon of human-animal relationship in the societal context (White and Candea, 2018).They have also researched about the multiple approaches through which humans connect with the animal species. The branch of anthropology has discovered that humans connect with animals via anthropomorphism, totemism and symbolism (Servias, 2018). This relationship exists due to the existence of Biophilia within the human nature (Rogers, 2015). This essay will take an anthropological outlook to the relationship with my dog, Oreo. It would also put light on the various social and cultural factors that contributed to this relationship.
[hbupro_banner id=”6299″]Anthropological perspective to personal human-animal relationship
Increased global focus over multi-species ethnography and inter-species relations has enabled anthropologists to investigate the nature of these relationships within the ecological setup (Galvin, 2018). Within this framework, a primary interest of the anthropology has been grown towards the human-animal relations. Humans and animals have an inability to share both a thin association primarily concerning hunting and recreation and a thick inter-subjective personal association that adheres to deep companionship (Knight, 2018). Animal companionship is an integral consideration in the field of anthropology and has become an essential need in the human’s life. This companionship guarantees a highly reliable and consistent association with a particular living creature and hence, strengthens a person’s emotional self (Amiot, Bastian and Martens, 2016).
I share a strong and an emotional bond with my pet dog, Oreo, who is a friendly and a non-hostile white colored Shih Tzu puppy. Oreo became a part of my life last year on 12th July and since then he continues to be the most affectionate and Joyous encounter. Oreo’s increased importance in my life can be attributed to the fact that he has proven to be the best listener in times of happiness and grief. We share an inter-subjective relationship due to my uneasiness to share my feelings with my parents. Both my parents are career-oriented and hence are busy in their businesses (Carter and Charles, 2016). They are not around when I feel the need of companion, however Oreo fills the need gap. My easiness to cuddle with him and let him share my personal space at all times has strengthened our bond. Due to the increased happiness and stress-relief that this bond facilitates, I am also able to enhance my confidence, self-esteem and social participation (Amiot, Bastian and Martens, 2016). Due to these inevitable reasons, I have started to anthropomorphize Oreo and started considering him as an essential family member (Urquiza-Haas and Kotrschal, 2015). The level of totemism that I tend to associate with Oreo is significantly influenced by my social and cultural upbringing.
My increased love for Oreo has also been influenced by the nurturing pattern in my family. Since I was a small kid, I have seen my parents being affectionate towards all animals, specifically the stray dogs and cats. My mother would regularly feed the street cats and would escort them to reliable animal shelters. My dad always encouraged this behavior and promoted this compassionate attitude towards animals. When I was 12 years old, my dad bought a pet cat, Rio, who was a furry hazel-eyed Birman. Our family had anthropomorphized Rio and we interacted with him, took him for walks and considered him as our best companion. Rio died when I was 17 years old and my entire family was traumatized by his loss. Due to the strong bond that my parents shared with the animals, I was nurtured to follow on their footsteps. I adapted my mother’s traits of executing symbolic interaction with the pet, respecting their rights and being entertained with their presence (Kulick, 2017). Hence, my family’s approach towards animal care acted as the most influential trigger in enabling me to develop a strong bond with my puppy.
[hbupro_banner id=”6296″]Furthermore, my ability to establish symbolic communication with my Puppy has also strengthened the nature of our bond. Despite the Linguistic limitations, Oreo’s comprehensible nature increases my love for him. He sits beside me and asks me to pat him when he notices me in a state of sadness and gets hyper when he sees me happy (Boyd, 2017). Furthermore, my puppy is also capable of detecting a list of other emotions include stress, tiredness, anger and bliss. This inter-subjectivity exhibited by Oreo is enhanced when he acts empathetic towards me and acts to be aware of my desires. This enables me to anthropomorphize him greatly since the puppy exhibits human qualities in an effective fashion (Carter and Charles, 2016).
This symbolic interactionism established between me and Rio, accompanied by sensory perceptions acts as a psychological comfort for me. Having an introvert and shy personality, I have always faced potential issues in interacting confidently in a social setting. I have also been verbally taunted and bullied on my inability to socialize with audacity. Hence, my social status in society had been jeopardized due to my reserved temperament (Kulick, 2017). However, when I considered Oreo as my metaphorical socializing partner, I was able to leverage my fears and was able to enhance my confidence on all social platforms. Due to the inter-subjective nature of our relationship, I also felt that I had a reliable entity to count on (Boyd, 2017). Hence, my instable social dynamics acted as a potential factor in strengthening my connection with Oreo .
Another essential factor that strengthens my connection with Oreo pertains to my ability to appreciate the nature’s living ecology. This innate Biophilia had existed in me since I was a small kid and had eventually become an integral part of my personality over the years. I found peace in viewing the nature’s minutest creations; in particular multiple inter-species relations and that feeling strengthened my bond with the nature’s living creatures (Beck, 2014). This experience made me anthropomorphize Oreo greatly since I realized that every entity has a right to be respected and loved (Servias, 2018). This made me treat him as a human creature and I developed an inter-subjective bond with him. I also started believing that humans have an essential responsibility of caring about the nature’s living beings and an effort at harming these creatures tends to be an unforgivable sin. Hence, my instinctual beliefs contributed in developing my intense love for Oreo (Beck, 2014).
Apart from my instinctual nature, this ecological attachment and Biocentrism had become a part of my personality due to the societal culture within which I was brought up. The increased instances of animal cruelty that I scrutinized in the Australian society, made me abhor this anthropocentric society. I realized that these non-human creatures should be given their rights and should be protected against the cruel actions of the society. When Oreo came in my life, I decided to provide a liberalized environment for him. All my family members endeavored to provide ethical treatment to the little creature and respect his sentiments. My personal relationship with Oreo was also highly inspired by the Zoo-centric treatment patterns. Furthermore, my ethical bond with Oreo was dwelled naturally due to the love, affection and companionship that I share with the puppy (Hanlon and Magalhães-Sant’Ana, 2014). The symbolic communication and the increased inter-subjectivity in the relationship enabled him to anthropomorphize Oreo and provide him with all the moral rights that a human deserves (Urquiza-Haas and Kotrschal, 2015). Hence, my bond with Oreo was intensified as a result of the societal predicament promoting anthropocentric ways of living.
Conclusion
The Anthropological study of the relationship with my pet showed that there are several social and cultural factors that influence the nature and strength of the human-animal connection. From instinctual nature and family nurturing to social and cultural predicament, there are various factors that inspire this bond. The ability to anthropomorphize Oreo, establish symbolic interaction with him and treat him ethically has been inspired by my Biophilia and attachment to the ecological nature. It can also be attributed to the anthropocentric nature of human society and the harsh practices observed by humans in the societal framework. The inter-subjective nature of the bond is also dwelled due to the thick association of companionship that is developed with the Pet.
After analyzing this anthropological phenomenon, it can be asserted that human and animal relationships have deeply ingrained social, psychological and cultural factors that drive the bond. Humans should make an intentional effort to acknowledge these factors and positively enhance the strength of the bond. Furthermore, there is need to shun the anthropocentrism that dominates the society and respect the ethnographic interspecies relationships that have started to appear within the global dynamics.
References
Amiot, C., Bastian, B. and Martens, P., 2016. People and Companion Animals: It Takes Two to Tango. BioScience, 66(7), pp.552-560.
Galvin, S., 2018. Interspecies Relations and Agrarian Worlds. Annual Review of Anthropology, 47, pp.233-249.
Knight, J., 2018. The International Encyclopedia Of Anthropology.. 1st ed. Belfast: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Rogers, K., 2017. The Biophilia Hypothesis – Advocacy For Animals. [online] Advocacy.britannica.com. Available at: <http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2015/07/the-biophilia-hypothesis/> [Accessed 7 April 2020].
Servais, V., 2018. Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Interactions: A Pragmatist View. Front Psychology, 9.
White, T. and Candea, M., 2018. Animals. [online] Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Available at: <https://www.anthroencyclopedia.com/entry/animals> [Accessed 7 April 2020].
Beck, A., 2014. The biology of the human–animal bond. Animal Frontiers, 4(3), pp.32-36.
Hanlon, A. and Magalhães-Sant’Ana, M., 2014. Zoocentrism. Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics, pp.1-10.
Kulick, D., 2017. Human–Animal Communication. Annual Review of Anthropology, 46(1), pp.357-378.
Urquiza-Haas, E. and Kotrschal, K., 2015. The mind behind anthropomorphic thinking: attribution of mental states to other species. Animal Behaviour, 109, pp.167-176.
Carter, B. and Charles, N., 2016. The animal challenge to sociology. European Journal of Social Theory, 21(1), pp.79-97.
Boyd, B., 2017. Archaeology and Human–Animal Relations: Thinking Through Anthropocentrism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 46(1), pp.299-316.
