Table Of ContentIf You Tame Me
Understanding Our Connection
with Animals
IN THE SERIES
Animals, Culture, and Society
edited by Clinton R. Sanders and Arnold Arluke
If YouTame Me
Understanding Our Connection with Animals
Leslie Irvine
FOREWORD BY MARC BEKOFF
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY PRESS PHILADELPHIA
Temple University Press, Philadelphia 19122
Copyright © 2004 by Temple University
All rights reserved
Published 2004
Printed in the United States of America
The paper used in this publication
meets the requirements of the American National Standard
for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper
for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Irvine, Leslie.
If you tame me : understanding our connection with animals /
Leslie Irvine ; foreword by Marc Bekoff.
p. cm. — (Animals, culture, and society)
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.
ISBN 1-59213-240-5 (cloth : alk. paper) —
ISBN 1-59213-241-3 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Dogs—Behavior. 2. Cats—Behavior. 3. Dogs—Psychology.
4. Cats—Psychology. 5. Human–animal relationships.
I. Title. II. Series.
SF433.I78 2004
636.7'0887–dc22 2003070299
2 4 6 8 9 7 5 3 1
Contents
Foreword: To Know Them Is to Be Them, by Marc Bekoff vii
Acknowledgments xiii
Introduction: The Fox’s Wisdom 1
1 How and Why 12
2 Them and Us 33
3 From Pets to Co mpanion Animals 57
4 Looking at Animals/Glimpses of Selves 78
5 The Adopters: Making a Match 89
6 Rethinking the Self: Mead’s Myopia 116
7 Self versus Other: The Core Self 126
8 Self with Other: Intersubjectivity 147
Conclusion: Putting Theory into Practice 172
Appendix: Methods 185
Notes 191
References 203
Index 219
Foreword:
To Know Them
Is to Be Them
M
ost human beings form close attachments with at least some non-
human animal beings (a.k.a. “animals”), usually companion ani-
mals (a.k.a. “pets”) such as dogs and cats. Often those who are not sure
about how they feel about other animals have a sort of love–hate rela-
tionship with them, even if they cannot articulate why. That is how
closely we are tied into the lives of other animals, whether we like it or
not. I have been studying various aspects of the social behavior and cog-
nitive and emotional capacities of animals for more than three decades,
and I begin my studies by asking the deceptively simple question, “What
is it like to be a _____?” where the blank can be filled in with one’s ani-
mal of choice. When I enter into their worlds—for it is essential to try
to understand and appreciate their worlds and their worldviews—
I become the other. Thus, in my studies of coyotes, I am a coyote; like-
wise with my research on dogs and birds. Our identities become blurred,
and the borders that many construct become permeable. Leslie Irvine
writes mostly about companion animals, and in my long-term research
viii FOREWORD
on dogs, I see that these remarkable beings not only follow their hearts
but also their noses, ears, and eyes. They can be victims of their senses
and of their unrelenting curiosity and boundless love, and that is why
we love them, why we identify with them, why they are us.
I love Leslie’s book. It is accessible and at the same time well
researched and scholarly, filled with “hard science” (what I call “science
sense”) and anecdotes (one of the two nasty “A” words and what some
pejoratively call “soft science”). Anecdotes are basic to most, if not all,
of the sciences, for it is usually stories that motivate further empirical
or experimental research. Moreover, it is important to remember that
the plural of anecdote is data.
The second “A” word that raises eyebrows and hackles is “anthropo-
morphism.” As Leslie and others have pointed out repeatedly, there are
no viable alternatives to being anthropomorphic, and if used carefully
and biocentrically (taking into account the world of the animals) anthro-
pomorphism can motivate further empirical work. We are anthropo-
centric because, as humans, we have to be to make sense of the behav-
ior of other animals. Critics of anthropomorphism offer timeworn and,
frankly, boring claims that being anthropomorphic makes the lives of
other animals more, or too, human. I think they are wrong, for by being
carefully and biocentrically anthropomorphic, we can make the lives of
other animals more accessible and at the same time take heed of what
we are doing.
Leslie has titled her study of the close relationships we have with ani-
mals after an episode in one of the most enchanting children’s stories
of all time. However, it is really one of the most enchanting stories of all
time. In The Little Prince,the adult must learn that sometimes it is best
to accept life’s mysteries. In addition, it is an animal, a fox, who reveals
that what really matters in life can be seen only with the heart, not
merely with the eyes. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry dedicates The Little
Princeto his best friend, but he is careful to clarify that he means to ded-
icate it to the child that his now grown-up friend once was. The same
sense of honoring and recapturing the wonder and possibility of child-
hood guides Leslie’s book. Children are curious naturalists, and they
TO KNOW THEM IS TO BE THEM ix
readily accept that animals are thinking, feeling beings. Children under-
stand that animals can sense and share our emotional states. As we grow
up and become “educated,” we learn that this is nonsense—that ani-
mals do not really feel emotions; that they are robots or automata. Now
we know that this portrait of animals is not only demeaning but also
patently false, for it flies in the face of scientific data that show that
many animals have rich and deep emotional lives. And, as Leslie points
out, their patterns of social communication can be very complex:
A growl is not a growl is not a growl.
Fortunately, some of us refuse to be trained, refuse to let supposed
objective and value-free science get in the way of our really learning
about the animals with whom we share Earth. Leslie is squarely situated
in the group that at once respects scientific data but also knows that
there is more to the study of animals than pure science. Although this
book draws on research Leslie conducted during the past five years, the
underlying premise that other animals are emotional and feeling beings
has driven her since childhood. As she relates the story of her encounter
with a baby elephant, readers will see the first indication of her curios-
ity about animals’ interior lives.
However, this is not a children’s book. It brings together solid evi-
dence and theory in ways that will convince the staunchest “grown-ups”
to abandon their notion of animals as machines (if indeed they still
stubbornly hang on to them). Leslie’s research involved careful obser-
vation of behavior, on the part of human and non-human beings. It is a
rigorous study. Yet it blends rigor with compassion, social responsibility,
and heart into a recipe that the Austrian scientist Anton Moser calls
“deep science.” Over the years, some of my colleagues have called me
“flaky” because I talked to my late dog, Jethro, and watched and listened
for the ways he responded to me. Let there be no mistake that his form
of communication—his language, dare I say—was deeper and richer than
most words I know. Perhaps some of Leslie’s colleagues in sociology will
have similar thoughts, thinking that this book falls far outside the realm
of “legitimate” sociological concerns. Some might say that, given the
many human problems in the world, studying animals is a waste of
Description:Nearly everyone who cares about them believes that dogs and cats have a sense of self that renders them unique. Traditional science and philosophy declare such notions about our pets to be irrational and anthropomorphic. Animals, they say, have only the crudest form of thought and no sense of self a
