Animal-Human Cultures - Essay Example

? Animal Human Cultures In this paper, the proponent tries to discuss the important and varying ideas of Cudworth and Franklin regarding petkeeping or animal companionship. The general concern of this article is to discuss the following argument: “The keeping of animal companions in the contemporary West is undoubtedly an exercise of domination. Despite this, different kinds of relations are possible” (Cudworth, 144). The proponent found that pet keeping or animal companionship involves relationships that one may define as quasi-social or even quasi-economical due to the nature of this activity. The proponent tries to elaborate this by pointing that humans could actually take advantage of whatever benefits they could substantially exploit from their pets. Keywords: pet keeping, animal companionship, pet, animals “The keeping of animal companions in the contemporary West is undoubtedly an exercise of domination. Despite this, different kinds of relations are possible” (Cudworth, 144). Discuss. Introduction The keeping of animal companion is a form of domination because humans are superior to any other life forms on earth with respect to different aspects. There is a significant gap, or indifference between humans and animals as agreed by Le Guin (1986). When it comes to intelligence, humans are capable of doing substantial number of great things compared to its other animal counterparts. Cudworth (2011) strongly emphasises this point by mentioning how humans could be capable of altering different breeds of pets. For instance, substantial breeds of pets are remarkable at present. Based on the idea of Franklin (1999), the reason why this could be so it is because having companionship with pets would bring some substantial benefits for humans. In other words, genetic modifications which led to animals to become diversified in their breeds points to the fact that they are not humans in the first place. In other words, humans can take control over them and there could also be many things that they can possibly do with them. Cudworth emphasises that pets are loved because they are not humans in the first place. However, the definition of this love might be a bit problematic because this argument simply has remarkable implications in proving some important relationships existing between humans and animals. Furthermore, this argument proves that affection and love may not be synonymous after all as there must considerations of different contexts in this issue. However, it is obvious that there must be substantial form of relationships existing between humans and animals in the issue of animal companionship. The proponent tries to elaborate this point clearly as possible by applying the arguments of Franklin and Cudworth in line with the issue of animal companionships. Background issue The domestication of animals provides many important things. In fact, this is the point in which humans can maximise everything out of domesticating or taking control over animals. For Cudworth this could involve having affection with them despite the very presence of domination. However, Franklin tries to include the point in which this specific affection addresses ontological insecurity. This ontological insecurity comes after the loss of paternal welfare due to market individualism in 1960s (Franklin, 1999). The keeping of animal companions boils down to the fact that humans could take care of their pets with them due to some elemental reasons. So it could be that the domestication itself is a way to orchestrate better interaction between humans and animals for the benefit of the former. It is true that the keeping of animals in the contemporary West is a form of domination but according to Cudworth (2011), there is affection involved in it. It is important to consider in great detail what this affection particularly means. As for the argument of Franklin, there could be essential relationship that exists in keeping animals as companions. However, his entire argument includes the major points about the benefits of keeping animals as companions. In these benefits, it is important to consider that various relationships are possible. For example, Franklin argues that animals could replace companionship that humans could provide. In his idea, there is a specific point which elaborates the fact how humans could substantially create relationship with animals as companions. Study reveals that pet keeping could provide health and therapeutic benefits (Franklin, 1999). Now, knowing this important idea has remarkably created a specific point in which pet keeping has substantially made its way to becoming more popular and heading its rate to an upward spiral. The argument in here might be more on the point of realising some substantial benefits on pet keeping rather than seeing the animals involved as pet or something to given with love. Cudworth does not actually deny the fact that pet keeping substantially includes affection even though there might a form of domination involved. However, such affection may just be an upshot of considering pets as something with essential value as commodity (Cudworth, 2011). In fact, society cannot deny the fact that there are people who actually come in close contact with animals as pets due to their remarkable benefits. Dogs for instance could be left at home and for security purposes. Dogs have something much to share about this story. In addition, cats having the nature as built for the kill would make good companions for humans at home especially in solving problems associated with rodents. However, despite some of these obvious benefits or contributions of animals in the society, still a lot of them continue to receive notable number of abuses or maltreatments from humans (Cudworth, 2011). This implies that animals are actually under the human power or domination. Pet keeping Franklin defines a pet based on Keith Thomas’ description of it (Franklin, 1999). Human household admits pets, gives them personal names and intends them not for food purposes. In other words, the generic term of affection explains by Cudworth regarding the human’s companionship with animals may eventually apply in this definition. However, there is a limitation at this point knowing the fact that as clearly stated in the argument of Franklin, pets substantially receive favor from human due to their remarkable benefits in maximising them as something of high great value, making them further as important commodity. In fact, pet in the new century as what Franklin would want to imply needs to be maximised. Even though they have to be considered part of the human existence, it cannot be denied that Cudworth still would want to define pets as animals being loved because of what exactly they are. For Cudworth, pets have nothing to stand against humans. For example, dogs are known to be man’s best friends, so they could not actually take things against their masters. This specific line of arguments prove that animals taken as pet remarkably receive their portion of affection from humans because of their ability to contribute noteworthy benefits and not because of what exactly they are. There is therefore a point of contrast between the stand of Franklin and Cudworth. For Cudworth, even if this involves domination, affection to animals coming on the part of humans is still evident. However, based on Franklin’s argument, pet keeping would just be a prime commodity not different from other basic commodities in life. For Franklin, the reason why pet keeping is important and even necessary at some point is due to the fact that one could actually gain substantial benefits from this specific activity, social and economic. This clearly depicts a specific case about domination, but on the other hand, it also shows remarkable relationship. At this point, it is clear that the human-animal relationship cannot actually be generalised as something intimate because not all humans actually try to consider this relationship something of significant value or worth without something in return. In the contemporary West, due to studies, animal companionship may have been found to have remarkable benefits. Thus, if ever animals are loved, it is due to the point that they are animals and there is something beneficial that humans could extract out of them. This eventually supports the idea of Cudworth. And her idea remarkably supports the position how animals are viewed from the point of view of Franklin. However, the point of contrast in their arguments lie at the point in which pets could actually provide security in an insecure world. For Franklin, this is a reality, but for Cudworth this does not make sense at all. Cudworth argued that single number households are most likely to include companion animals. On the other hand, Franklin agrees with the idea of Serpell that one has to closely look at the actual intention of pet keeping rather than on the rate of ownership (Franklin, 1999). Both of them have actually remarkable points on this issue. However, at this point it is always necessary to look at the actual or probable intention involved in pet keeping prior to understanding the kind of relationship existing between humans and their pets. It is clear so far that something of social and economic parts may have better contribution for defining the relationship between pets and humans. Intention behind pet keeping It still remains a good point to discover the issue about animal companionship in pet keeping. It is important to consider if this includes mutual benefits or advantage among the subjects involved. In the case of keeping pets for companionship, the intention is quiet clear. This is due to the fact that in contemporary West, animals are actually associated identity, and health and therapeutic advantage especially among elderly (Franklin, 1999). Pet keeping therefore may have become essential due to benefits that might have been actually associated with it. Animal companionship therefore may have elemental value in it. However, the entire point is that this happens because there is something of importance or significance that each person has to realize with pet keeping. However, the point whether animal companionship is due to its therapeutic advantage and other advantages or not is a good issue to dig in detail. The idea of exploitation based on the argument of Cudworth is a bit convincing at some point. For her, there is economic exploitation involved in coming up with different breeds of pets. There is economic concern in this case because different breeds usually would entice those enthusiasts in pet keeping activity. As stated earlier, the presence of different breed is a form of domination, but to actually create gain from it from economic perspective based on the arguments of Cudworth is quiet exploitative. Animals as pets are no longer different from other prime commodities. It makes sense after all because when there are pets, it would substantially benefit those animal-food manufacturing companies. So it would make sense that these companies would come up with important information about the benefits of pet-keeping activity. For instance, it would be a point on their side to find out that there is a great potential for animals as companions as they may create health and therapeutic benefits. In this case, the relationship may not be a little solid about loving animals as they are but because there is something significant about rearing them as companions in their pet forms. This is exploitative in a general picture because animals have become primarily tools in maximising human benefits, pleasure or convenience (Cudworth, 2011). For instance, some may actually have the joy in pet keeping because it would give them remarkable satisfaction about themselves. In fact, according to Franklin, there is an association involved between pet keeping and human identity. For him, it would mark social identity which one could mirror from the early twentieth century. This created a specific argument that pets are actually integral components of modern lifestyle choices as everyone has choice in modern life (Franklin, 1999). Perhaps, it is good to elaborate the actual value of pets as they are. There have been many important issues raised regarding this concern and quiet a number of them argue with each other. However, the bottom line is the point that animals as pets do not actually have the choice of their own. They are dependent on human domination which if critically evaluated, has nothing of great significant difference compared with a master-and-slave relationship, which basically involves social and economic issues. Clearly speaking, pets are just parts of humans’ desire for additional fulfillment in life. There might be a significant relationship that will prove that there is something far more than pet keeping activity itself, but substantial evidences or remarkable arguments could prove that humans with their ability to exploit nature do not have actually some limitations when applied especially in the context of rearing animals as pets. Humans could create a need and even maximise that needs for acquiring benefits. This is the reason why pet keeping involves different issues associated with it. One could not deny the fact that each of these issues may have significant truth in it. For example, pet providing security in an insecure world by Franklin may be a bit debatable from the point of view of Cudworth. For Cudworth, to live alone is the ultimate source of security (Cudworth, 2011). Perhaps, there is significant truth in both of these arguments. Based on the discussion so far, it is important to consider that when one needs to critically take into account these arguments, the inclusion of varying point of views is necessary. For instance, up to what extent person’s identity associates with pets should be one major point of concern. Conclusion Whatever concerns may be connected with humans in pet keeping or animal companionship, it is therefore clear that the existing relationships may be quasi-social or even quasi-economical. This is due to the point that humans have the ability to take advantage of whatever benefits they could substantially exploit from their pets. At this point, humans might be adhering to maximising the potential benefits that nature orchestrates with animals. References Cudworth, E. (2011). “Love: Stories from the Lives of Companion Species“, in Social Lives with Other Animals: Tales of Sex, Death and Love. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Franklin, A. (1999). “Pets and Modern Culture“ in Animals and Modern Cultures. London: Sage. Le Guin, U. (1986). “She Unnames Them” in Buffalo Gals and Other Animal Presences. New York, NY: Penguin. Read More