Domestic Animals and Leisure

Neil Carr

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN:
  9781137415530
• eBook ISBN:
  9781137415547
• Subtopic: Geography
• Index: Geography

This volume offers both an insight into the current state of research on domestic animals in leisure and a lens through which to begin to chart the future of research in this field. All of the contributions to the collection are underpinned by ongoing debates about human-animal relationships and the rights and welfare of the latter.

1

Defining Domesticated Animals and Exploring Their Uses by and Relationships with Humans within the Leisure Experience

Neil Carr

Introduction: What and why?

It has been argued that, in a world where more and more people are living in urbanized environments (to the extent where it is estimated that 54% of the global population were urban dwellers in 2014, up from 34% in 1960 (World Health Organization, 2015), a figure which is higher in the developed nations of the world such as the UK, where in 2013 82% of the population were urban dwellers (World Health Organization, 2014)) the connection between humans and non-human animals is diminishing (Kete, 2007). This process can be traced back to the urbanization of Western Europe during the Industrial Revolution. Indeed, as Brantz (2007: 83) notes, ‘many people’s personal engagement with livestock diminished as a growing percentage of rural populations moved to urban areas’ during the nineteenth century. The diminution of the human–animal link may be said to be the case even amongst the vast majority of those now living on the urban fringe or in rural areas in Western nations as they often have no direct link with the land in which they live. The cities of the world have until relatively recently been portrayed as locations devoid of ‘wild’ animals or domesticated farm animals. As a result, the inhabitants of these spaces are distanced from the latter group of animals who often provide at least a portion of their nourishment; milk is provided in cartons or plastic bottles that often lack even the picture of a cow on them, eggs are cleaned of any offending chicken poo and neatly arrayed in boxes, and meat comes fully prepared for the kitchen, unrecognizable as the animal from which it originated and sometimes even given names that further distance the meat from the animal (so instead of eating ‘pig’ we eat ‘pork’ and instead of eating ‘cow’ we eat ‘beef’). There is no need to pluck the chicken or duck to divest it of its feathers as these, as well as its head, feet, and internal organs are removed long before the consumer purchases it from the supermarket.

At the same time as the supposed creation of a divide between people and animals, more people are actually living with animals now than at any time in recent history. Whereas in a pre-industrial era these animals were kept for the survival of humans, today they are kept as pets or markers of a lifestyle choice. Amongst these animals dogs and cats are the dominant species. Both have a long history of domestication, with Bradshaw (1992) suggesting cats first began the process in Egypt in approximately 4000 BC, while more recently Rochlitz (2007) points to evidence indicating the process may have been ongoing for 9,500 years. In comparison, Bradshaw (2011) claims archaeological evidence dates the beginning of the domestication of dogs to between 10,000 and 14,000 years ago, while Horowitz (2009: 39) suggests that ‘Most researchers think dogs began to associate with us even earlier, maybe many tens of thousands of years ago.’ Instead of an abandonment of the link between animals and humans, this points to a shift in the nature of this link and the animals that dominate it. The extent of the relationship between humans and domesticated animals is illustrated in Table 1.1, which shows the number of such animals in the UK in 2014 and the percentage of households housing at least one animal of each species. Looking at this data the dog is clearly the most widespread pet, while the most numerous are fish. It is worth noting that the number of pets sharing space with humans has increased in recent years, with Carr (2014: 7) noting that ‘we have witnessed a large increase in the dog population throughout the second half of the 20th century and into the 21st century’.

What does ‘domestication’ mean and which animals can we list under the heading of ‘domesticated animals’? The root form of the term ‘domesticated’, according to Horowitz (2009), means ‘belong to the house’, which clearly indicates a strong link between domesticated animals and humans. This link, Horowitz suggests, is a process of evolution that has been driven by human selection and breeding of animals rather than natural evolution. Such a view is supported by Eddy (2003: 100), who provides what he identifies as a ‘hard line definition’ when stating that a domesticated animal is ‘A species of animal which has been artificially selected by humans over a number of generations to possess specific traits and over which humans have reproductive control.’ Furthermore, Miklósi (2007) points out that these traits have been targeted to enable the development of an animal that fills a specific human-created (anthropogenic) niche. While such niches may have traditionally been seen to relate to work or food production, more recently they incorporated human companionship and fashion as well. One important point to recognize is that while an animal may have been domesticated for one purpose or to fill one niche it does not mean that it has remained only in that place. The dog is a perfect example of an animal that was initially domesticated for one set/set of purposes and has since been utilized in many more as human needs and desires have altered (Carr, 2014).

Table 1.1 Extent of domestic animal ownership in the UK (2014)

Animal	Number of animals (million)	% of households owning at least one animal
Fish kept in tanks	20–25	9.0
Fish kept in ponds	20	5.0
Dogs	9	24.0
Cats	8	17.0
Rabbits	1	2.4
Domestic fowl	1	0.8
Caged birds	1	1.4
Guinea pigs	0.5	1.1
Hamsters	0.4	1.4
Lizards	0.4	0.7
Horses	0.4	0.3
Snakes	0.4	0.5
Pigeons	0.3	0.2
Tortoises and turtles	0.3	0.6
Frogs and toads	0.1	0.1

Source: Pet Food Manufacturers’ Association (n/d).

In the context of Eddy’s definition it is clear that not only dogs and cats, as the dominant animals now living with their owners’ blessings in people’s households, can be defined as domesticated. Instead, there is clearly a wide array of domesticated animals and includes all of the animals that have been widely farmed (cows, sheep, chickens, ducks, horses, deer, etc.). In addition, an array of animals including, but by no means limited to, pigeons, doves, rabbits, guinea pigs, rats, mice, budgerigars, elephants, ferrets, and goldfish have clearly been artificially selected by humans over generations for specific traits and many now live in people’s households as pets. Yet such an apparently simple definition is complicated by the fact that domestication at its root is supposed to mean humans have brought animals into their homes. Clearly, while this is true for some of the animals listed above it is not the case for others; we have brought the dog and cat into our homes but the elephant remains outside along with the farm animals. This requires us to have a look at what we mean by ‘home’. If we mean only the building in which humans sleep and eat and engage in family life then we immediately remove from our list many animals that otherwise would be defined as domesticated. Alternatively, if we expand our definition of ‘home’ to encompass all human-constructed places then there is increasingly little space left on the planet which would fall outside such a definition. Clearly, such a wide-ranging definition is impractical. So, the solution must lie somewhere in between, with domesticated animals living in a space that is highly regulated and clearly owned by humans. In this definition, the human home becomes the ultimate space of domestication but not the only one. We can also argue about the extent to which an animal has been brought into the home and what this means for domestication. For example, many people own dogs but do not allow them into the home, while others are happy for their dogs to sleep in bed with them. In comparison, some people keep their cats as indoor only pets while others are happy to let them roam and return to the home whenever they please.¹

Exploring the definition of domestication further leads us to ask if it is an all-or-nothing construct in relation to reproductive control, and how many generations of animals must be subjected to this before domestication is achieved. For example, we can view the highly controlled breeding of pandas by the Chinese authorities as a form of domestication. Similarly, the varied breeding programmes that now exist in zoos around the world under the label of species conservation can be seen to represent the domestication of these animals. Certainly Brantz (2007) has suggested that zoos have been responsible for the domestication of individual animals, if not entire species.

Is something missing from Eddy’s hard definition of domestication? Is there a need to encompass the notion of a relation between human and animal in definitions of domestication? Yet relationships clearly represent a fuzzy concept and cannot therefore be placed in a hard definition of domestication. They encompass everything from viewing an animal as an object to seeing it as a sentient being and partner. To complicate things further, differing animals from the same species can potentially be engaged in different forms of relationships with different human beings at the same time and in the same space. For example, as shown in Carr (2014) we live in a world today where the dog is an object, tool, and sentient agent in the eyes of different people, where it can be an integral part of the human family and an item on a restaurant menu. In this way, relationships, while undeniably important, are of little value in attempting to define the limits of domestication. After all, even animals that are clearly wild in that they fit no aspect of Eddy’s definition may have a relationship with humanity, even if it is an unequal one (note, for example, the relationship between people and the wild polar bears of the Arctic or the relationship between the human inhabitants of North America and wild skunks and racoons).

We therefore begin to see that what may seem a relatively simple thing to define, domestication, is in fact a process and state of being without hard edges. In this way we must recognize the existence of a continuum between wild and domesticated animals rather than a hard dividing line. Dogs and cats exist as the prime exemplars of domesticated species against which others may be judged on a continuum of domestication. Their breeding has been routinely influenced and manipulated for thousands of years by humans for the benefit of humans. The animals have been put to ‘work’ by humans and they have developed, through breeding for specific traits or otherwise, strong bonds with humans. At the other end of the extreme are species that have never been bred by humans and have no affinity with them; these are ‘wild’ animals. Does such a species exist in the contemporary era? I am sure if I suggest one then someone will argue against it. This shows the wide ranging influence of humans on the globe, but I think I may be on fairly safe ground if I suggest the humble fly. When we talk of the hard definition offered by Eddy we can think at the species level, but when we begin to examine the relations between animals and humans we can begin to recognize that within any species some individual animals will be more domesticated than others.

Pets can clearly be seen as domesticated animals, yet it is important to note that not all domesticated animals can be viewed as pets. The difference can be seen in the notion that pets are kept for human pleasure rather than utilitarian reasons (Eddy, 2003; Brantz, 2007). While this is clearly an over-simplification of what a pet is and why humans live with them, the important point to note is that not all domesticated animals are kept for pleasure and/or companionship; indeed doing so is a relatively recent phenomenon, at least for most strata of society.² While this means that not all domesticated animals can be viewed as pets within the context of this book, the key point is that all pets can be regarded as domesticated animals.

This discussion on what constitutes a domesticated animal takes us to a point where it is possible to view a wide range of animals and animal species as having been, to varying degrees, domesticated. Yet the focus of this edited volume is not just on domesticated animals but rather their position in the leisure experience and environment. There is no space within this book to launch into the complex debates of what constitutes leisure.³ Rather, for the purposes of this book we will take leisure to be a broad umbrella concept, incorporating as a central notion the idea of freedom (‘to be’ and ‘from’) which is associated with enjoyment, pleasure, self-fulfilment, and identity construction. As such, leisure is clearly a human construct. Within this book attention is focused on the positioning, using, and experiences of domesticated animals within this leisure. Given the foregoing discussion of what constitutes a domesticated animal it is clear that the range of potential animals in leisure is significant, as is the nature of the positions they assume in leisure environments and the experiences they have and colour for human participants. The intention of this book...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Acknowledgements
• Notes on Contributors
• 1. Defining Domesticated Animals and Exploring Their Uses by and Relationships with Humans within the Leisure Experience
• Part I: Dogs
• Part II: Horses
• Part III: The ‘Missing’ Others
• Index