1. Sociol 322: A sociology of relational life
Pets and relational life

2. reading
Charles, Nickie ‘Animals just love you as you are’: Experiencing kinship across the species barrier Sociology 48 (4):

3. outline Pets in households
Historical context – changing place of animals
Definition
Pets as family members
An ambivalent relationship
Pets as child substitutes

4. Source: Pup culture and crazy cat people: pet ownership in NZ
Source: Pup culture and crazy cat people: pet ownership in NZ
Finding No. 6332, Roy Morgan Research, July

5. Changing place of animals

6. Pets as family members

7. ‘Something remarkable has been happening in post-industrial contexts across the world since the 1990s: a shift from considering pets (especially dogs) as a species apart, to a reconsideration of pets (especially dogs) as profoundly appropriate objects of human affection and love. Simultaneously, there has been an elevation in our relationships with and to pets. It is now mainstream and apropos in many places to consider pets as subjects which are in many ways equal to humans. In this sense, the prototypical Fido who slept on the floor and ate scraps from the table has been replaced by Lucy, a companion … who sleeps on a bed and eats upscale foods.’ [Nash 2006, 894]

8. For many of us, pets are simply among those beings we live with: they are animals that are kin. The inherent paradox here of a member of a different species also being perceived as a member of the family is in many ways unimportant to those who live with animals. Pet ownership is premised on the notion that it is possible to extend ones capacity for love beyond the limits of the species; that one can have a truly affectionate and meaningful relationship with a being that is not a human (Fudge 2008,13-4, cited Fox and Walsh 2011, 104)

9. Adults 4% included pets

10. Relationship quality - companionship
Emotional Support

11. ‘Pets were involved in creating social connections within families, communities and beyond. They were regarded as fictive kin and also as companions and friends. Clearly, the species barrier is no obstacle to pets being defined as kin and as being endowed with agency. This is not to say that they are necessarily regarded as humans, although in some cases this might be so, but that they are included as actors in their own right in social relationships.’ Charles & Davies [2008/2011, 89]

12. Children & pets

13. “The animals who mattered to children were embedded within children’s other relationships. For children, knowing animals was part of knowing humans and a part of experiencing the space of others’ homes or one’s own locality. Children did not engage with animals in a vacuum, rather these relationships were interwoven with the other relationships in their lives.”
[Tipper 2011 art, 161]

14. Children
60% included pets

15. ambivalence

16. ‘Since pets are literally both “belongings” and integral to our sense of “belonging” they can be shaped by human desires as companions, family or friends, but are also vulnerable where they do not conform to human expectations and have limited powers of decision-making within the relationship.’ [Rebekah Fox and Katie Walsh 2011, 104]

17. Blouin 2013
Doministic logic
Humanistic logic
Protectionist logic