Urbi et Orbi

+ + Camilla Schickova + +

“What I see in front of me is a parade of mutants. It’s some freakish, garish beauty pageant that has nothing, frankly, to do with health and welfare.”
Mark Evans, Chief Vet, RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), speaking on the BBC

One day I’d like to invite an Aborigine, an Inuit, an Amerindian, a Trobriand islander, and a Maasai warrior over to Britain to join me in watching the absurd, bizarre and embarrassingly pointless ritual that is Crufts – the Kennel Club’s annual UK pedigree dog show championships. Would they laugh, or would they be too shocked, confused or appalled rendering them lost for words? Each of these tribal societies has a healthy working relationship with man’s best friend who adoringly helps them out with hunting, livestock or transport. Suffice to say my tribal friends would go back home as witnesses, and Britain would very soon become the laughing stock amongst the majority of peoples worldwide.

Despite devoting my undergrad career to anthropology – I continue to have, like many fellow Brits, strong concerns for the health and welfare of our fellow furry friends. So I was of course shocked and appalled by the recent BBC documentary earlier this month which exposed the high prevalence of genetic disorders now found in Britain’s pedigree dogs, coupled with either the ignorance or (worse) the arrogance of some breeders who turn a blind-eye in order to carry on winning rosettes at shows. Our pedigrees are now suffering genetically derived problems because of decades of competitive close inbreeding to keep pedigree lines as pure as possible. Awareness of this practice has been driven underground by the Kennel Club’s failure to accept the severity of the consequences, and refusal to take action by banning continual father-daughter/ brother-sister/ mother-son matings. And so the problem has now got wildly out of hand. (I have attached links below this article which focus on this current debate in greater detail.) The BBC programme drew attention to disturbing and tragic physical manifestations of German Shepherds with a weakened hind gait, Boxers suffering grand-mal seizures, Pugs with chronic respiratory difficulties, and Cavaliers with syringomyelia- a condition where their brains are now too big for their skulls. Even our national symbol the British bulldog cannot mate or give birth unassisted. And the dirty little secret is out on Crufts’ all time favourite consecutive prize-winning Pekinese which had a secret operation to aid its breathing in order to prolong its winning streak.

It is depressing enough that Britain as a developed nation is now plagued by chronic illnesses, but that we are now deliberately putting other species through the same ordeal is shameful and unacceptable. As any biologist will tell you – inbreeding of people is abhorred more than ever, now that science has proved that inbreeding in any species through incestuous relations leads to the accumulation of deleterious genes resulting in the eventual physical manifestation of genetically-derived disorders. More worryingly – long term inbreeding will reduce the gene pool for each breed, which will eventually result in the reduction of genetic diversity, leading to sterility and eventual extinction of our beloved pedigrees. Alongside this, any anthropologist will tell you that, regardless of scientific awareness, incest on the whole is culturally taboo in human societies across the globe

There are of course exceptions, one ironically being our own monarchy. Queen Victoria married her own first cousin, and it was during her reign that pedigree dog-breeding kicked off in a big way amongst the middle and upper classes. Queen Elizabeth loves her purebred Corgis, and also her husband AKA second cousin once removed. Thus symbolically in her nation’s psyche, Britain is no stranger when it comes to the association between inbreeding and high-class status.

The interviews in the BBC documentary revealed several middleclass breeders and showmen behaving a little on the tetchy side, expressing more pride in their art than crucial awareness of how their pursuit for beauty is harming the objects of their affection/livelihood:

“I don’t want a bunch of scientists telling me that they know more about it than all those dogs that I’ve know for the last 40 years. I know all the dogs in those pedigrees, and I know their weaknesses, and I’m trying to breed away from their weaknesses. That’s what dog-breeding’s about.” – Ronnie Irving, Chairman of the Kennel Club.

Founded in 1873, The Kennel Club is the world’s oldest all-breed kennel clubs and the first official purebreds registry. Its signature event is the annual Crufts show. The Kennel Club’s two main functions are to administer the registry that records the lineage of pedigree dogs, divided by breed, and to license the majority of dog shows in the UK, including Crufts.
Mr. Irving rather bashfully admitted his awareness that registered club breeders are practising close inbreeding, but he feared banning it would only scare members away and exacerbate the problem. The documentary also showed one proud owner who, having admitted she was aware that her prize-winning Cavalier has syringomyelia, was then too embarrassed to talk about it. As for the breeders themselves, despite stating they were aware that there is now a problem, most dismissed it all as nonsense and refused further interview. Surely if these breeders are demonstrating awareness, then they will stop this inbreeding? Wrong. It is clear that what is actually involved here is not ignorance of scientific fact, but rather a trade off between animal health and human social status.

So how might anthropology shed some light on this extraordinary behaviour where some people are burying common sense for animal welfare under an obsession for prize rosettes? Allow me to argue this: it is not a question of whether or not breeders realise, understand or accept the science, but rather a predictable revelation: could these dog breeders really only be pampering their pooches in hope of advancing their own social status? Most likely yes. Dog breeders appear to be projecting their idealised ambition for beauty, prizes, fame and reputation onto their pets, and their rewards for apparently selfless work towards the good of the pedigree no doubt makes them feel good about themselves. But in reality their obsessive anthropomorphic projections are selfishly anthropocentric. That’s quite a mouthful, so let’s go into this in a little more detail to clarify.

Anthropomorphism is the projection of human characteristics and/or emotion onto animals or objects. Let’s look at other examples. For my dissertation I explored the enculturation and integration of urban migrants taking up farming within my godmother’s local community as a microcosm for a rapidly changing rural Britain. Through first-hand interviews with these farmers I explored how social relations, conflict and integration of people are emotively derived and mediated through different cultural (urban vs rural) attitudes concerning animals, meat, and perceptions of country-living. It became clear that new farmers who become too emotionally attached to their animals through anthropomorphism are unable to farm effectively, which then results in a lack of respect from indigenous farmers who have learnt to “just get on with the job” by sending their animals off to slaughter. Farmers’ lives are intertwined with their livestock, their dogs, their farming neighbours, their neighbours’ livestock and so on, so that animals become (as Levi-Strauss coined the phrase) good to think, but more specifically in the case of all Britain’s animal owners: good to know , good to show, good to argue, good to compete and so on. In this way, animals act as a template for the construction of social codes through which human social relations of friendship, conflict, solidarity and status are constructed and expressed. Levi-Strauss was onto something when he claimed “the animal world is thought of in terms of the social world” (1962:81), as this is what we are seeing with pedigree breeders. This human obsession for beauty aesthetic is just another mode of anthropomorphising an animal, but some appear to be so driven by aesthetic goals and ambition for social status that they have become blind to the inner workings of the animal, i.e. their health. It doesn’t matter how big its brain tumour is on the inside, if a cavalier King Charles spaniel looks gorgeous on the outside it can still win awards and advance its owner’s social status up the breeder ranks.

During my fieldwork I interviewed the husband of a renowned lady-judge at the annual village farm show. Whilst we talked, I watched the breeders as they obsessively sprayed and re-sprayed the wool of their sheep yellow, for better presentation. Pedigree sheep are bred and sculpted to perfection to show off well sculpted horns, clipped nails, good quality mouth, coat, and feet. On a professional level, Judges have a huge responsibility; they owe the animals, breeders and farmers their honest judgement to ensure survival and successful future breeding; one cannot afford to breed from poor stock with bad genes. Local pedigree shows allow for friendly competition and development of community spirit, and also provide an invaluable social space for spreading awareness of livestock diseases and their prevention. But the art of judging is also indirectly constructing social relations because the difference between prized animals analogously reflects the differences between individual showmen who in turn represent local and national groups. For example, national patriotism was evident through a favourite contestant at this show – the Welsh mountain sheep is a symbol of national farming pride, and many Welsh judges have this home breed’s best interests at heart. My interviewee sincerely expressed how competitions at a local level give opportunity to show what farmers are capable of and how, at a national level, breeding is about making British agriculture go from strength to strength.

Many anthropologists have argued that it is human nature to create boundaries between different groups such as class, and thus construct social difference. Several writers (Dizard 1999; & Fukuda 1997) argue that the Animal Rights movement is a direct example of this. The movement was created through collective desire to redefine humans and humanness; it is less about animal welfare, and more about satisfying people by changing the boundaries that separate our cultural existence from nature and define ourselves between different social groups. For example, fox-hunting is a familiar epicentre at which different classes of people focus their varied perceptions of cruelty, and thus exercise their conflicting beliefs, social positions and aggressions towards other people. Again one can see how man-man relations become political through the man-animal relations involved in hunting, lab research, veterinary practice, abattoirs, pedigree breeding and so on.

But of course there now appears to be a more sinister side to our use of animals in the construction of social status. Britain is renowned for being an animal-obsessed country – a minority in the World’s shadow where most are dealing with far greater problems to not have to give a damn (very understandably) about caring for the average street mutt. Brits have the money, time and resources for such lavish hobbies. However, we have now pushed this hobby too far – if our pedigree guardians continue inbreeding, at this rate the average street mutt found throughout the globe is likely to be healthier and happier than the average British pedigree. Now there’s something to unsettle the pride of any classy breeder who might still be in denial of having overdone it. And yes it is their fault, and yes they must take responsibility for what is happening.

Here’s why: cue the headache debate that is “animal rights”. The Animal Rights movement is concerned with “cruelty”, thus it will stick its nose into all the issues touched upon so far: farming, meat production, pet ownership and of course pedigree (in)breeding. Many scientists and animal-workers have argued that animals, unlike humans, possess neither self-consciousness nor autonomy of moral being. Therefore animals have no human-like individuality, no duties and, strictly speaking, no rights

Jeremy Bentham, legal and social philosopher and founder of University College London, highlighted how this is not a question of whether animals have reason, will or personality, but whether or not they too can suffer like humans. Thus philosophers of this debate have argued that animals technically have no rights until they are forced into dependence upon humans – only then do they enter our own social consciousness so that we are aware of any suffering, at which point we have unavoidable duties towards their welfare. This includes all animals in captivity – at home, in zoos, on farms – and especially any breed or species whose gene pool we are actively tampering with.

If we want to play God we have a responsibility to avoid f**k-ups, especially when the scientific facts have been made known to us. So for the pedigree breeders who have now been presented with both the scientific facts and the philosophical reasoning, they have no excuse for dismissing responsibility, nor for laying blame on nature for this genetic crisis. It will be interesting to see if and how the Animal Rights movement will react to this recent exposure of deleterious inbreeding. Will activists finally side with scientists against pedigree breeders? I hope so. Or will they take a step back and recognise their own similar battle for social identity and status reflected in that of the breeders themselves? Hopefully not. Besides, why should they care, this is the perfect opportunity for them to hit back hard at the higher classes. Let the battle for saving our pedigrees commence.

Throughout my (not so many) years helping on my godmother’s farm, during my veterinary work-shadowing at school, and during my BSc fieldwork, I have come to understand three types of rationality involved in animal guardianship from the farmers and vets I’ve known, and now from having seen the behaviour of dog breeders in recent news. These three rationalities are: emotional, aesthetic and professional.

Emotional rationality is seen with your average pet owner, of whom most are truly concerned with animal welfare. But with anything emotionally derived, this type of rationality can get out of hand. We hear stories of antisocial old age pensioners loving their cats and dogs more than neighbours or children, and owners so attached to a pet that is too often a child-substitute to the point where, as one vet told me, they can get rather abusive, adamantly insisting “you can’t let my dog die!” when there is nothing a vet can do.

With pedigree breeders it appears to be the opposite. Like average pet owners, they too are very attached to their animals, but the emotion involved is founded on pride for aesthetic and obsessive preservation of their social reputation as a breeder, which overrides any rationality concerning animal health. Emotion generated by pride is only ever obsessively selfish, not rationally empathetic.

Thirdly, with farmers, vets and judges (I exclude judges of Crufts) their rationality towards animals is raised to a professional perspective, animal health and welfare should always be given priority over genetically-unfounded aesthetic or human sentimentality in order to succeed in good breeding, good husbandry, good meat production… and in the case of pet ownership – good health. To the judges of dog shows like Crufts who consciously undermine this professionalism: you are an embarrassment and a let down to your nation, and to all the dog owners who put their trust in your supposed expertise and who are now suffering the consequences.

So in conclusion, I hope I have drawn attention to how social difference and conflict are constructed and mediated through animals, so that man-animal relationships and man-man relationships are directly feeding back into each other. Animals act as vital social buffers through which emotional tensions can be expelled when social conflicts arise; competitiveness at animal shows allows for everybody to show off how good an animal they can produce; and different attitudes towards animals define social boundaries, as demonstrated by the fierce conflicts between the upper and lower classes regarding animal rights, or between farmers and townies, or between proud middleclass pedigree breeders and humble scientists.

With regards to how we might begin to tackle the problem and save our pedigrees: a clear distinction has to be made between selfish sentimentality – which blinds animal guardians from harsh realities like genetic disorders – , and real empathy – which “obliges us to know animals for what they are, to regard their bad points as well as their good and to take an undeceived approach to their needs and sufferings” (Scruton 1998:89). In retaliation to Mr. Irving I say: breeding needs to leave a little room for each individual dog’s weaknesses, any biology A-level student will tell you that; following purebred lines too closely is only creating mutant versions of your best friend. This needs to change if we want to save the diversity of our pedigree gene pools. If our purebreds are so cherished by British breeders then they as guardians have a responsibility to subdue their sentimental obsession for beauty, overcome their anthropomorphic tendencies, and draw from a new professional rationality in order to save Britain’s pedigrees. Here’s hoping they make the right choice. But then, when it comes to humans there is always difference, and choice is always subjective. For now this anthropologist can only stand at the sidelines and sigh, with awareness as her only weapon to pass on.

-

Related links

BBC News: Pedigree dogs plagued by diseases

BBC One: Shocking truth about pedigree dog breeding

BBC News: How dogs breed have changed

Wikipedia: Purebred

Bibliography & further reading

For those keen to read Anthropology texts around the subject, some starting comparisons might be: A farmer’s competitive pride for his tups at auction (Gray 2000) can be likened to anthropologist Clifford Geertz’s theory on “cock-crazy” Balinese men who express there machoism through competitive cockerel fighting. Vets will indirectly ease their frustrations towards emotionally aggravating owners by relaxing their concern for a particular sick pet (Sanders 1995). Malagasy peasants ease frustrations of their colonial subordination by speaking down to their mute cows in French. A powerful herder’s relationship with his powerless cattle is analogous to the powerful colonists’ relationship with the powerless peasants (Bloch 1998).

Bloch, Maurice (1998): Why do Malagasy cows speak French? Ch.12 in How We Think They Think: anthropological approaches to cognition, memory, and literacy. Boulder, Colombia: Westview Press, 1998. p.193-195.

Daston, Lorraine & Mitman, Gregg (2005): Introduction: The how and why of thinking with animals; & Intelligences; Angelic, Animal, Human. Ch.2 in Thinking with animals: new perspectives on anthropomorphism / (eds) Lorraine Daston & Gregg Mitman. New York; Chichester: Columbia University Press, 2005. p.1-14.

Dizard, Jan E., (1999): Going Wild: hunting, animal rights, and the contested meaning of nature / Jan E. Dizard. Rev. and expanded ed. Amherst, Mass: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999.

Douglas, Mary (1991); Purity and Danger: an analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. London: New York: Routledge, 1991.

Evans-Pritchard, E.E (1940); Interest in Cattle. Ch.1 In The Nuer; A description of the modes if livelihood and political institutions of a Nilotic people. Oxford University Press p. 14-50.

Gray, John N (2000); Ch.7 Lamb Auctions; spectacles of hill sheep farming. & Ch.8 Ram Auctions; tups of value, men of renown. In At Home in the Hills: Sense of Place in the Scottish Borders New York: Oxford Berghahn Books. p.147-187.

Ingold, Tim, (1988); Introduction: animality and humanity. & Ch.4 Animality, Humanity, Morality, Society. In What is an Animal? London: Unwin Hyman.

Levi-Strauss, Claude (1962); Totemism. London: Merlin Press, English translation, 1964.

Sahlins, Marshall (1976); La Pensee Bourgeoise; Western Society as Culture. Ch.4 in Culture and Practical Reason. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. P.166-179.

Serpell, James (2005); People in Disguise; anthropomorphism and the human-pet relationship. Ch.6 in Thinking with animals: new perspectives on anthropomorphism / (eds) Lorraine Daston & Gregg Mitman. New York; Chichester: Columbia University Press, 2005. p.121-136.

Scruton, Roger (1998); Animal rights & wrongs London: Demos 1998. p. 33-40.

Scruton, Roger (2001); England: an elegy. London: Pimlico.

Tuan, Yi-fu (1984); Dominance & Affection: the making of pets. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Vialles, Noélie (1994); Animal to Edible preface by F. Héritier-Augé; translated from the French by J. A. Underwood. New York: Cambridge University Press; Paris : Editions de La Maison des sciences de l’homme 1994.

Wolch, Jennifer & Emel, Jody (eds) (1998); Animal geographies: place, politics, and identity in the nature-culture borderlands. London:Verso, 1998.

Boyer, Pascal (1996); What makes Anthropomorphism Natural: Intuitive Ontology and Cultural Representations. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute Vol 2(1) p.83-97.

Convery et al. (2005); Death in the wrong place? Emotional geographies of the UK 2001 foot and mouth disease epidemic. Journal of Rural Studies Vol. 21; p.99-109.

Fausto, Carlos (1999); Of Enemies and Pets: Warfare and Shamanism in Amazonia. American Ethnologist 26(4) 933-956.

Fukuda, K. (1997); Different views of animals and cruelty to animals; Cases in fox-hunting and pet-keeping in Britain. In Anthropology Today Vol 13(5) p. 2-6.

Mullin, Molly H (1999); Mirrors and Windows: Sociocultural studies of Human- Animal Relationships. In Annual Review of Anthropology Vol.28; p.201-224.

Sanders, C.R (1995); Killing with Kindness: Veterinary Euthanasia and the Social Construction of Personhood. In Sociological Forum Vol.10(2) p.195-214.

Shanklin, Eugenia (1985); Sustenance and Symbol: Anthropological Studies of Domesticated Animals. In Annual Review of Anthropology Vol.14; p.375-40

Words by Camilla Schickova. Photos courtesy of Google Image.

Urbi et Orbi © 2008-2009.

Tags: Animal, Ritual+Rituel, UK

This entry was posted on Mercredi, octobre 8th, 2008 at 21:20 and is filed under In Extenso. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.