3. On Animals in American Politics and Society
3.3. Horses and dogs as unique companion animals
I argue that horses and dogs are uniquely close to humans as companion animals and, accordingly, have especial potential to be used in a sentimentalized and, thus, politically effective manner. To add to discussion of the previous section, domesticated horses and dogs have qualities that make them especially suitable for “goodness”, and they can, thus, be viewed as being at the top of the purity hierarchy. In addition, I identify them as having several other merits that operate independently from the Romantic mode and that enable them to be the uniquely portrayed companion animals they are in my primary texts.
Tuan describes the dog as “the pet par excellence” which calls on forth “the best that a human person is capable of—self-sacrificing devotion to a weaker and dependent being” (102). This is
25
demonstrated through affection, love, and kindness (Tuan 102).10 Furthermore, McLean notes that dogs are “unique in the animal kingdom” through humans having “custom-engineered” them to be domestic companion animals that want to both please humans and work for them (11). These qualities allow politicians who want to portray themselves in a positive light in their autobiographies to use dogs as fine-tuned literary companions, too, to carry out a supporting role that serves this purpose and calls upon positive emotions. Likewise, along with dogs, horses have been called “man’s best friend”, and they are known to enhance self-esteem and self-confidence in humans and foster social and emotional growth (Beck and Katcher 3, 150). Also, McKenna identifies horses as playing “an important role in how human beings understand themselves” both in a personal sense and in terms of the history of humankind (43). This echoes the notion of writing about animals being a form of writing about ourselves, and also means that political autobiographers have a pre-existing framework for using horses to, effectively, write about themselves.
What sets horses and dogs apart from other companion animals in the United States is that they are domesticated to the extent of being trainable, primarily not owned for food, and commonly occupy a physical space much closer to their human owners than other animals, including long times of skin-to-skin contact when riding horses and when petting or sleeping together with dogs. Through this physical closeness, a psychological closeness can also be expected. Indeed, McKenna highlights the need for humans to “get to know the individual differences” of individual horses and dogs and
“acquire the flexibility of learning to read and understand the individuals with whom we are working”, “just as we do with people” (142). This reveals a deep psychological aspect of the relationship and further characterizes horses and dogs as special animals. Beck and Katcher support such a view and elaborate by noting that humans often believe certain animals to have a “wordless understanding” of them, or even “psychic powers”, which is reflected in common accounts of “horses
10 Tuan also explores dominance, abuse, and cruelty in human-dog relationships. However, these are not relevant here, since my focus is on demonstrating how the primary texts employ positive depictions of dogs to counter negative aspects of politics.
26
that can locate lost children or dogs that know of their masters’ deaths thousands of miles away” (90).
Notably, McKenna writes that the relationship of humans with both horses and dogs “has transformed human beings as much or more than it has transformed” horses and dogs (134). These effects on humans include accommodating the natural needs of the animals and, through that, modifying our own ways of living and thinking (McKenna 134-137).
To demonstrate the uniqueness of horses and dogs as companion animals, I will compare them to two other similar and common animals, cows and cats.11 The difference between horses and dogs as compared to cows can be readily seen from the fact that there is little scholarly literature available on personal human-cow relationships and on the cultural and societal importance of cows (when removed from their purely agricultural and economic qualities). This is notable, since in terms of numbers, cows are comparable to dogs, and in terms of physiology and habitat to horses.12 Even though cows can be interacted with and though they have individual personalities, they are not usually trained to perform complex actions and are primarily owned for agricultural purposes, which usually remains a central part of the human-cow relationship even when cows are considered as companion animals.
Cats are comparable especially to dogs through their size and anatomy as well as them commonly living and sleeping with their human owners. However, according to McKenna, “Cats have a complicated history. They have been vilified as instruments of the devil, been blamed for the plague, and been considered in many superstitious beliefs as harbingers of bad luck.” (184). While dogs do not have a history of solely positive portrayals and broader cultural attitudes towards them, the complicated history of cats is much more notable in the way it follows them up to this day. For example, cats are often “targets of choice for those who want to torture other animal beings” and
11 The term “cow” is often used when discussing the female, but it can be used to cover both sexes. Here, I am using the term in its latter meaning. In my primary texts, both sexes feature almost exclusively as an agricultural commodity and not one individual is identified as a companion animal. Thus, there is no further need to distinguish the two sexes here.
12 Regarding the number of domesticated animals, there were about 90 million cows (United States, Department of Agriculture 19) and 80 million dogs (Hunter et al. 1) in the 2010’s in the United States. Regarding physiology and habitat, cows and horses are both hooved and grazing farm animals.
27
shelters having a time finding homes for black cats (McKenna 184). McKenna sums this up by noting that “In general, cats are seen as expendable and so not worth any investment of time or money.”
(184). Also, cats can be very solitary and aloof, not anxious to please humans, and bound to their owners merely because they feed them, and through these characteristics it can be argued that cats have not been fully domesticated, unlike dogs (McKenna 185; McLean 11). Indeed, McKenna notes that “except for a few specialty breeds, cats’ breeding is not greatly controlled by humans” (185).
Lastly, “17.4 percent of people say they dislike cats”, whereas the same statistics for dogs is merely 2.6 percent (McKenna 188).
Thus, the agricultural purposes and herd reliance of cows and the complicated history, current status, and independence of cats prevent these two species from attaining the kind of physical and psychological closeness that horses and dogs share with humans. The same pattern is repeated, but even more conspicuously, when considering other common animals which can be considered companion animals, such as sheep, birds, and fish. These observations confirm that horses and dogs are high on the purity hierarchy and can serve effortlessly as highly sentimentalized animals.
Accordingly, this serves as a foundation for the special attention that horses and dogs receive in my primary texts and already starts to shed light on the question why these two species in particular might be used for exceptional political effectiveness.