PET-OPHILIA
by
ROBERT J. LEWIS
_____________________
The word
pet in French means flatus, gas or wind. I live in a
mostly French city, Montreal, which is why I’m usually smiling.
WHY WE
LOVE OUR PETS
It
was not an uncommon display of public affection. The woman, in
her late 30s, not plump by today’s standards and not unattractive,
was frolicking with her dog -- a handsome, pedigreed Dalmation
-- on one of the grassy knolls in Adoncour Park. Despite the sun,
there was a chill in the April air so the owner, let’s call
her Diane, made sure her 4-legged friend was buttoned up in a
smart foul weather coat.
In what
must have been in the spirit of levelling the playing field, Diane
suddenly dropped to her knees which facilitated lifting the dog’s
front paws as it began licking her unexpectedly very available
rosy cheeks, at which point she began to speak in half-dog, half-baby
talk while hugging and squeezing The Loved One with every
ounce of her immense humanity. It was obvious to my untrained
eye that only in death would they part, that this was one dog,
unlike many of the planet’s two-footed creatures, who had
it made for life, just as it’s a fact that thousands of
children routinely starve to death everyday.
As my
mind began to force the conjunction of these two not necessarily
incompatibles, I began to wonder what
it is that we love when we love our pets -- and what in general
attracts so many of us to pet hood -- beyond the affection they
elicit, the loyalty they lavish, and superb company and distraction
they provide. Canadians spend an astounding
4 billion dollars per year on their pets, while
it costs only
$34/year to feed a starving child.
I LOVE
REX – ‘AS IS’
The hour
is late, I’ve had a long day, a late supper. From my posture
to expression, I don’t like myself and crave unconsciousness
in the form of sleep. I have just slipped out of underwear the
Tide box is eyeing suspiciously, when Rex, as usual, insouciantly
enters the bedroom. In deference to the dog-hominoid bond that
my wife enjoys as much as I, there are but two things I ask of
my pet at this unedited time of day: that he keep his tongue to
himself, appetite settled on the chicken bones I have set aside
for him, and that his regard of me exhibit the accustomed vacuity
and dumbness that distinguishes his splendid species. I do not
want, under any circumstance, to be judged or be made to feel
self-conscious by my ‘beloved’ animal friend. The
moment this man’s best friend begins to show even the vaguest
shadowings of intelligence, the kind that might require no less
than a million years for evolution to make manifest, it’s
pet cemetery for Rex – no court of appeal.
If there
is a universal law that provides for what is inviolable in our
relationships with our animal kingdom favourites, it reads like
this: of all that we ask and expect of our pets, what is non-negotiable
is that they be totally and incorrigibly stupid. Prior to their
well documented behavioural endearments, their affecting stupidity
is what we first love about them, and to such an extent that the
moment this stupidity is even vaguely threatened, there will come
to pass – overnight -- a pet holocaust the likes of which
this planet has never known, and pet cemetery will constitute
an unbroken line from one end of the earth to the other.
It is
hardly a coincidence that as we become more civilized, that is
more estranged from our natural selves, we find ourselves more
dependent on and involved in the lives of our pets, for what is
often disparaged in human nature is countenanced in pet play.
There
is a philosophical case to be made that we make our values most
explicit in our relationships with our pets. I, for one, must
confess that, based on evidence that includes servings of Heidegger
and dog chow, the only time I find myself in the truth of my being
is when I’m in the company of Rex, the unwitting guarantor
of my authenticity.
Since
we are almost always good to our pets and indifferent to most
human suffering, we shouldn’t be surprised that we invariably
delegate our best laid plans to the reserve clauses of language
which for the most part have no bearing on what’s happening
on the ground, that same ground where our dogs have buried the
meaty bones we have provided them.
No
less than our pets that are wired to be dumb, we are dumb-wired
to the fate of almost everything outside our personal sphere
of activity. Sadly, it
is all too predictable that if the senses haven't been engaged
by whatever it is that is under consideration of the mind --
the organ of reason – the latter is likely to treat it
and all objects of pure thought as abstractions that have no
purchase on reality. Beam our pet loving Diane to a refugee
camp where there is no avoiding hunger, squalor and disease,
you can be sure that the monies she would otherwise allocate
to her pet will be redirected to some real someone whose real
suffering has touched her to the quick.
The reason
our pets have it good while so many humans have it bad is because
we are remarkably indifferent to suffering that doesn't register
on or upset the senses -- a state of affairs that is not likely
to change unless we make this astonishing fact that which most
deserves our attention. At which point, if we're lucky, we'll
be capable of identifying the exceptional among us, who have learned
to refuse their natures, and for whom conscience means to act
in accordance with what is right.